Friday, March 2, 2012

Something Awesome

     Every morning as I commute to work or school, I am awestruck.  Every evening when I return home, I am amazed.  Despite what you may be thinking, this isn’t due the relaxing and invigorating commute I have in my 2000 Ford Focus, although I do enjoy driving what is more-or-less a hatchback golf cart at highway speeds.  No, what I am referring to is something far more majestic, far more glorious, far more amazing.  Pike Peak is something truly awesome.
     Now, I didn’t always hold this belief.  I used to look at Pikes Peak as just another mountain, just the backdrop for class pictures, and just the beginning to the much more expansive and daunting Rocky Mountains.  I’m sure the first time I saw Pikes Peak I thought it was cool, but having grown up with it as not much more than a backdrop, I began to let any and all fascination with it fade away.  After all, it really is nothing more than a tourist trap and field trip destination.  It wasn’t until last year that I started taking notice to the beauty I am daily surrounded by.
     What caused this change?  A challenge.  A challenge to stop separating God from his creation.  A challenge to not allow the world around me to be the backdrop of my life, but to become part of my life.  A challenge that seemed simple, but turned out to be dreadful.  
     When I would look at nature I would see rocks, trees, dirt, mountains, animals, and occasionally water.  It was just stuff; stuff to be used or forgotten, enjoyed or ignored.  Why should I even care?  What made nature so great?  I remember hearing people talk in awe about driving through the rocky mountains, how majestic and extraordinary the views were.  I couldn’t comprehend how something so normal could seem so amazing.  But that all changed when God came into the picture.
     The challenge I mentioned above was issued by my mentor.  He challenged me to keep a prayer journal throughout the week, to write down different prayer requests for myself and those around me, and then to go outside, alone and pray.  Now at this point in my life, prayer was a total chore.  Prayer was: something you avoided in public, something you did before you ate, something you did while you were alone, and something that still seemed foreign and pointless.  Honestly, if prayer is just something you do, why even bother?  So, after 3 or 4 weeks of this I told my mentor I was done.  I hadn’t “felt” anything and I hated taking time out my day to go sit on some rock while it was cold and windy to recite some lines into nothingness.
     My mentor then told me to go back out, but without any pre-written requests.  He told me to go out for 30 minutes (I thought I would die!) and just talk to God about anything.  Well it wasn’t long before I ran out of “Christian” things to talk about and had to start talking about the stuff around me.  I talked about how much I hated the wind, how uncomfortable I was sitting there, and how utterly pointless I thought the whole thing was.  After a while, I realized I had been there over an hour.  I was no longer talking about the wind or the cold, but I was pouring my heart out to God.  I didn’t care about proper form, or well-constructed sentences.  All I cared about was keeping the conversation going.  I didn’t want it to end.
     Needless to say, I now love praying outdoors.  I love being alone and away from all the distractions of life.  More than that, I love being in a place that God made.  Being able to touch and hear and see all of God’s creation.  I love to hike or sit in the mountains and take-in how big and expansive and detailed nature is, how insignificant I am to the mountains and trees around me, and to be exposed to how everything God has provided for me.  The world isn’t just the setting for humanity, it’s the place God made for us to live in and enjoy.

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Wasted Grace

          I have been hearing a song on the radio that really bothers me.  I usually don’t write or even think about song lyrics because musicians usually sacrifice good theology in the place of good music.  As unfortunate as that is, singing theologically sound lyrics typically don’t inspire the type of awe and reverence that most people want out of worship.  I have learned this through many “subtle” changes to various songs thought the years at my Presbyterian church.  While most of the changes make the lyrics better align with our church doctrine, they oftentimes change the flow and rhythm of the songs.  Not to mention that they typically are ignored.  All that is to say, I’m not a big fan of changing song lyrics or even criticizing them.  I feel that if you disagree with a song, you can probably find hundreds of others that fit your worship style or beliefs better.  However, the song I am going to write about bothers me because it attacks the very foundation of what I believe.
          Now, I don’t think the writer intended the song to reverse the gospel, in fact I think the song was meant to encourage Christians, but ultimately it alters the gospel in a way that I cannot feel comfortable even listening to.  The song “Waiting for Tomorrow” by Mandisa is not all that different from most christian call-to-action songs.  It’s message is that by trying harder and believing more, you will better reflect your Christianity.  It calls you to action through the repeated phrase “I don’t want to look back and wonder if good enough could have been better” which, while incorrect, is not too different from what a lot of Christians believe and preach.  Even if you don’t believe it, we all have struggled with the idea that if we just tried a little harder we would finally get where we want to be.  This gives us control of how God views us, and even though that may seem horrifying, at least it’s easier than having to trust in someone else.  This, however, is not my main concern.  While a “try harder” theology is definitely unsettling to me (and something that I will definitely be writing about in the future), it is the misuse and misunderstanding of grace that troubles me the most.
          In the chorus, we find the lines “I can't live my whole life wasting all the grace that I know you've given.”  While these lines only continue to reinforce the “try harder” message of the song, they also show a much more unforgiving and ultimately hopeless gospel.  The first thing we see is that grace can be wasted.  What does that say about you and me, recipients of God’s grace?  First, it says we might not be worth it.  God might have made a mistake giving you grace because maybe you aren’t the person he thought you were.  Maybe He is wasting his Son’s blood to save you.  Second, it says that we have an expectation.  If there is a way we can waste God’s grace, then there must be an appropriate way for us to “use” it.  We need to start living up to the standard and we need to make sure that our “good enough” couldn’t be any better.  It says that we need to do something in order to insure God’s grace.  Both of these thoughts reduce us down to the orphans we once were.  Instead of being viewed as sons and daughters, they say that we are just barely acceptable benefactors to God.  We need to just “do enough” to receive God’s grace and make our life worthwhile.
          The second message these lines send is that grace isn’t all that useful.  Basically, this sentence says that grace is only good for ensuring value in your life.  While that certainly is a benefit of grace, the gospel is, means, and does so much more.  By reducing the gospel simply to something we use, viewing it as a tool, we remove the gospel from grace.  Basically, we are saying that what Christ did on our behalf wasn’t complete, wasn’t total, wasn’t final.  It creates a “grace and” mentality that puts our works back into the equation.  Ultimately, by looking at grace as only the means by which we are pardoned, but not the means by which we are transformed or made righteous, we say that Jesus’ blood didn’t satisfy God’s wrath and didn’t fully secure our adoption by God (Romans 8:15).  If grace is merely the pardoning of sin and nothing more, then we cannot experience the joy, love and peace that comes from knowing our God as Father.  
          In closing, I want to again say that I do not want to throw-out this song, nor am I claiming that Mandisa isn’t a christian, rather I am urging you to be careful when listening to music (particularly christian music).  While music and worship in general is a much more personal and emotional event than say analyzing theology, I think it is vitally important that we don’t fill our heads with doctrines that debase the gospel.  While grace doesn’t need to be the central theme in every song you listen to or book you read, if it is in any way reduced, rejected, or limited, then it is being deeply misrepresented.  

“And Jesus your grace is all that I need, it's all that I need, yeah.
And grace upon grace is all that I breathe, it's all that I breathe.
In Jesus alone my atonement is known, I stand on grace.”
Jimmy Needham (Stand on Grace)

Tuesday, January 31, 2012


The first post can be found here.

In response to the question, What do you make of the triangular relationship between Abraham (Abram), Sarah (Sarai), and Hagar?
When reading Genesis 16, I think it is important to note two key facts before making any analysis.  First, the reason behind Sarai and Abram’s behavior is that they had been promised a son by God.  They were not acting this way simply because they wanted a son, although that was very important in their society, but because Abram was around 86 (Genesis 16:16) and we can assume that Sarai was at least beyond the years of childbearing (as well as medically infertile [Genesis 16:2]).  The second note is that this behavior was acceptable during that time (and still is in some societies today).  Given that an heir was so valuable in that society, and the fact that many men had multiple wives, it was not uncommon for a man to have a son by a woman other than his first wife.  With those two notes in mind, I will continue onto my reaction to this passage.
        The first thing that jumped out at me was how close of a relationship Abram and Sarai seem to have, as well as how unimportant Hagar seems to be.  I would assume that both Sarai and Abram wanted a son, not to mention other children, and it appears that they came to the conclusion they would need outside help (the same way a couple might go to a fertility doctor or consider adoption in modern times).  It is also surprising that it seems to be Sarai’s idea that Abram impregnate her servant (although I’m sure they either talked about it or at least knew it was the only option before she made the final decision), indicating that she was more concerned with his interest (having a son) than her own comfort.  This is just another indication of how strong their relationship must have been.  Of course, once Hagar did become pregnant, Sarai naturally became jealous.
        While it was perfectly natural for Sarai to become jealous that another woman was carrying “her” son, Hagar didn’t help remove any tension as she “looked with contempt on [Sarai]” (Genesis 16:4).  This of course caused Sarai to be infuriated and she went to Abram with her anger saying, “May the wrong done to me be on you! I gave my servant to your embrace, and when she saw that she had conceived, she looked on me with contempt. May the LORD judge between you and me!” (Genesis 16:5).  Obviously she regretted her decision and wanted Abram to find a solution.  However, Abram seems dismissive and his response is simply to allow Sarai to do with Hagar as she pleases (Genesis 16:6).
        Abram’s reaction doesn’t seem to make much sense.  First, he doesn’t seem to care about the reason all of this started in the first place, his heir.  By allow Sarai to scare off Hagar, he removes the chance (or so it appears) that Hagar will provide him an heir.  Second, he shows a lack of care for Sarai (although given his track record we wouldn’t expect anything else) by not comforting her and by allowing this to happen in the first place.  Third, Abram shows no regard for Hagar who is not only carrying his child (and would-be heir) but who he is openly using simply as a surrogate mother.  It’s as if he is just going to let things play out and then find another servant to impregnate once things die down.  This certainly doesn’t seem like the type of behavior a man of God should be exhibiting (although elsewhere in the Bible, Abram displays just as much cowardice and lack of faith in God).
        On the surface, it seems that this is just another case of the people of God, in this case Abram, ignoring God’s promises.  In spite of this, God still appears to correct their wrong by sending Hagar back to them (Genesis 16:9).  Beneath the surface, we see a relationship between an apathetic man, a desperate woman, and a helpless servant.  While the initial intentions may have been good, ultimately we see that by taking matters into their own hands, all three people (although primarily Hagar and Sarai) suffer unintended consequences.  While it may seem odd to us that this behavior would even be taking place (much less agreed upon), I feel that this is no different (and maybe even less offensive) than a spouse seeking fulfillment through an affair or “open marriage.”

Note: In light of the Adam and Eve story, I find it interesting (although completely irrelevant) that both women (Eve and Sarai) are the first to suggest or take part in sin—Eve with the fruit and Sarai with suggesting Abram’s infidelity.  While I certainly think this is irrelevant to each story (especially this one) I am sure that feminists will point to this fact as an example of androcentrism (which it very well may be).  However, I think there is a much more logical and fitting reason behind both cases.

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Adam and Eve

The first post in this series can be found here.  

After reading an article by Jerome Gellman found here, contesting various interpretations of Genesis 2 and 3 by a multitude of feminists, I have come to the conclusion (although I must admit that this is the conclusion I held before being introduced to any feminist literature) that the story of Adam and Eve was never intended to be used as defense of feminism.  (On a side note, I have also found that rarely, if ever, the Bible can or should be used as a “proof text” for one’s opinions.  It is my opinion that if the Bible cannot be taken as truth, then it should not be used as a tool in argument.  It was written to be the complete truth and using bits and pieces will undoubtedly cause the passages to be taken out of context).  Despite the fact that I find the story of Adam and Eve to be unsporting of feminism, I will attempt to address the issues raised by feminists regard this passage.
        The various arguments I have come across can be condensed into 3: the meaning of the curse of Eve, the meaning of Eve being Adam’s “helper”, and the focus of the story being on men/women relations rather than sin.  It is important to note that the majority of the opinions I have read have attempted to argue that the Bible is both true* and in defense of feminism.  It is from their position that an obvious flaw arises.  By both accepting the Bible as factual and arguing that it is pro-feminism, one would be forced to choose which ideal is more important, and as a feminist, they usually choose the latter.  Regardless, I will examine each argument, show why it is incorrect, and then provide what I believe to be the appropriate way to answer their questions.  Also, I will not attempt to repeat their arguments (go ahead, read the article).

*By true I mean that they would argue that the stories in the Bible have been viewed as factual to its readers throughout history and therefore should be analyzed as such to understand the impact they have had.

The Curse of Eve
        To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children,
yet your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you." (Genesis 3:16 NRSV)
        This passage has two main parts: the first in regards to childbearing, and the second regarding how Eve will now relate to Adam.  It is also important to note that these statements do not apply specifically to Eve, but to all women.  In regards to childbearing, few feminists have an objection.  They either view this as a punishment for sin, or as a condition of living in a fallen world.  Also, given the fact that this has nothing to do with Adam (although many contend that his punishment was far less severe) they have little reason to address it.  The primary argument comes from the last two lines, primarily the phrase “he shall rule over you.”  This statement is typically explained away using a bunch of Hebrew language semantics, or it is used as proof that life wasn’t meant to be this way (meaning men ruling over women).  I will first address the language side of the argument.
The first point to note is the fact than many portions of the Hebrew Bible (OT) are written in a form of poetry called “parallelism.”  In these sections, such as Genesis 3:16, the lines are grouped into pairs where the second line reflects upon, restates, or reinforces the idea in the first line.  Of the various feminist arguments I have read, many neglect this fact entirely.  They instead claim that the line “and he shall rule over you” is connected to Eve’s “desire” for her husband because Eve’s desire for him will be crushed by his dominance.  This seems like a much more “modern” way of reading these lines, without regard to the Hebrew writing style.  A much more fitting, and more accurate, way of understanding these lines is to interpret the word “desire” as not a sexual or relational desire, but as the same way it is translated in Genesis 4:7, which is a desire to rule over, to subvert, and to manipulate.  Obviously this interpretation causes problems for feminists in that it implies that Adam has the right to have power (since Eve will try to take it from him) and also that Eve will naturally attempt to harm or disrespect Adam in doing so.  Both assumptions are relatively anti-feminist.
The second argument feminists make using this text is that given the fact that Eve is being given a new set of standards in this statement, the old standards must have been different.  Or, as they argue, if Eve is now being put under the rule of her husband, then before the fall she must have been equal.  Much of this argument is largely dependent on conjecture rather than fact.  There is very little explanation about the relationship between Adam and Eve before the fall and while we would assume they were perfect (or, without sin), that doesn’t imply that a feminist’s idea of perfection (women being men’s equal in every regard) is the correct one.  We know that Adam was given control over the animals and the land, and that he and Eve were charged with subduing it.  While there is no explicit command for Adam to rule over or control Eve, her role as “helper” does give us a great deal of insight into what their relationship was like.  Given that this is the next problem feminists have in explaining the story of Adam and Eve, I will move on to that debate.

Eve the Helper
Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.’ (Genesis 2:18 NRSV)
The word helper does not carry lofty connotations; especially when someone is created to be a “helper” as was the case for Eve.  While many feminists have tried to interpret this verse so that Eve does not appear to be created simply to “help” or “serve” Adam, I think that it is much better to accept the word “helper” rather than attempt to interpret differently.  I will, however, concede that there is an argument to be made regarding this word, one that David Freedman argues quite well by replacing “helper” with “strength or power equal to.”  Regardless, I think that referring to Genesis 1 (the creation story) provides overwhelming evidence that God created men and women not only equal, but also with distinguishable qualities that allow for a relationship to be much more fulfilling and glorifying to God than a “friendship” (between two completely equal people).
        The verse behind my argument (Genesis 1:27) describes the fact that God created both men and women in His own image.  What this means is that God imputed his own qualities into both men and women (and I think it is fairly obvious that he gave different qualities to each).  That is not to say that the differences between men and women indicate that he gave “better” qualities to one and  “worse” qualities to the other, but rather that both received qualities that, when properly complemented by the other, provide a picture of God himself (the image of God).  This is why we find marriage as a tool used throughout the Bible to describe God.  Viewed in this light, what was once an argument about male-domination is now focused on the importance God placed on humanity, by giving us some of his traits.  While both men and women will and have rejected or abused some, if not all, of these characteristics, to make the argument that one or the other is more valuable or powerful is illogical.  When viewing God’s creation of Eve for Adam the way He intended it to be viewed, I think it is obvious that seeking perfect “equality” for men and women is far less important than seeking perfect “union” between the two.

What does Sin have to do with it?
“Various attempts have been made to argue that the plain meaning of the story of the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2-3 supports a feminist, or at least a woman-friendly, understanding of the gender and sexual relationships between Adam and Eve.” (Gellman 1).
        Of the various feminist opinions on Genesis 2 and 3 that I have read, few of them mention sin as its overall meaning.  Typically, they claim that the story of Adam and Eve was the way the Hebrews explained their androcentric tendencies and patriarchal society.  By making this claim, it is relatively easy for them to then show that God created Adam and Eve “equal” and that men should not dominate women.  While many of these arguments make sense given their context, I believe that the story of Adam and Eve was never meant to be read in a feminist context and ultimately has very little to do with male/female relationships.  While it’s true that we can infer about the relationship Adam and Eve were intended to have, the second and third chapters in Genesis are primarily to explain humanity’s current condition—a sinful condition.
        Genesis 3 is the explanation of how sin entered the world.  Furthermore, the idea that this passage is primarily describing the foundation of sin in the world is referenced multiple times throughout the Bible (see Romans 5:12, 14, 18, 19, and 1 Corinthians 15:21 & 22).  I think that given the fact that both a cursory reading of Genesis 3, as well as a study of the one of the overall themes of the Bible (man’s sinful nature), leads one to view this passage as talking primarily about sin, we should be slow to read it in any other light, specifically a man-made agenda.  While it is certainly important to view the Bible as a complex text (in which almost every passage can support various viewpoints), it’s also important to keep ourselves from reading it searching for evidence to support our own opinions.

Saturday, January 21, 2012

Gender, Race, and the Bible

          This semester I am taking a class titled “Gender and Race in Biblical Literature.”  While the “biblical literature” implies that the course will include some apocryphal writings, I am excited to take a class where the Bible will be used as a textbook.  Another exciting aspect of the class is that at various times during the semester, I will be required to read a passage from scripture, along with an article critiquing a various aspect of the selected verses, and then write my own response.  While I have found religious classes in a secular school to be enjoyable in the past, I am excited to gain a deeper knowledge of the Biblical text while being challenged to form a view on gender and race with regards to the Bible.
            While gender and race issues still cause problems for the church, I feel that race issues are not nearly as prevalent in the churches I have grown up in.  I definitely don’t want to diminish or ignore the ways the church has abused minority races throughout history, but taking into account my personal experiences, the focus of the course, and the current church I attend, I will primarily be focusing my writing on the topic of gender.  
As I am already learning words like androcentrism, I find myself forced to face the cruel reality that male domination over women has existed throughout history both inside and outside the church.  Suddenly I am pressured to understand why the church holds its current views on the roles of women and men (and why there is so much variation throughout); and more importantly, to understand what I actually believe.  While it is true that my attention has been drawn to this issue primarily by this class, I cannot ignore the radical changes taking place throughout the churches in our country regarding women.  Nor can I deny the likelihood that sometime in the next 5-15 years, my church (or at least denomination) will be forced to reexamine its stance on women.  
While I don’t fear that there will be an upheaval throughout the church (although it’s certainly a possibility), I must acknowledge that as these issues are raised they will ultimately cause some to leave the church.  I go on this tangent not to create an unwarranted emotional response or to garner your attention, but rather to stress the importance of addressing these issues and finding a biblically sound (rather than culturally acceptable) answer to the relationship between men, women, and the church.
Given the phrasing in the above paragraphs (and if you have ever talked to me for more than 30 seconds) you’ve probably concluded that I am writing this shortly after reading an academic article.  Due to my excitement about this class and its subject matter, I want to start writing immediately.  The article I just read can be found here, the scripture passage (Genesis 1-3 although primarily focusing on chapters 2 and 3) can be found here, and my response to these texts can be found here.

Adam and Eve

Saturday, December 17, 2011

Christians and Alcohol

Table of Contents  
 Since coming to college, I have been bombarded with alcohol. Not from invitations to parties, or my “secular” friends who drink daily, but from the Christians around me who seem intent on making sure that I can support their convictions. Throughout high school this was certainly something discussed in church and youth group, but never to the extent that I needed to constantly defend my position. When a non-Christian asks me why I don’t drink, they are fine with a simple reason. But when the question is from a Christian, they continually press. It’s as if they want to know what scripture I rely upon, what experiences I’ve had, and ultimately, whether or not they can trust me to hold to my convictions when temptation comes.
I don’t know if it comes from personal experience or if it’s just a stigma in the church, but it seems that college students who drink alcohol, or even allow the possibility for it, are viewed as “immature Christians.” I don’t rant about this because I feel condemned or judged, but rather because I want to expose some of the fallacies Christians use to either justify or condemn alcohol use, and then offer my personal opinion on the subject. But first, I want to say that when it comes to the topic of Christians and alcohol, the first and often only sin committed is that of condemning another person based on their convictions.
First, I want to address some of the justifications I have heard from Christians regarding alcohol use. The most common is referencing Jesus turning water into wine to which they say, “If Jesus drank alcohol (and even made alcohol for others to drink) without sinning then so can I.” While this may be true, it totally removes all context from the situation, and breaks down to the argument, “If it happened in the Bible, then it must be OK.” However, a simple reading of almost any Old Testament story would prove just how false this argument is.
The other common fallacy I hear is that wine is praised multiple times in scripture. In fact, the praise of God and of his coming kingdom often includes references to wine (Psalm 104:14-15 and Ecclesiastes 9:7 among others). While this is true, the issue of alcohol is not about whether or not alcohol is good, but about what negative effects it can have. I liken this debate to one that in my experience the church has so far avoided: food. Only a fool would say food is a bad thing, but our society’s widespread, over-consumption of it certainly is. Similarly, alcohol consumption is not a bad thing, but the circumstances surrounding it and amount consumed can make it deadly.
Ultimately, those who argue that alcohol consumption by Christians is alright, tend to have weaker arguments. This causes me to ask the question: Is that because they have nothing to defend? Now I want to look at the arguments against any and all alcohol consumption. These arguments tend to be more personal in their attack and their reasoning.
By far, the most prevalent reason I hear that people don’t drink is because they have seen the negative effects in their lives. Whether it is a parent, relative, friend, or spouse, they have been forced to come face to face with the reality that alcohol has the ability to destroy relationships and families, end lives, and cause second-hand destruction so violent, that it leaves the victims loathing even the thought that someone else would indulge in this addictive lifestyle. While this argument certainly contains truth, it is situationaly exclusive, not allowing the victim to look at alcohol any other way. While I won’t ask anyone who has experienced alcohol-related trauma to change their convictions, I think it is important to understand that when a conviction comes from personal experience, it may be difficult for others to agree with.
Regarding the debate among Christians in general, I think far more grace needs to be displayed on both sides. For Christians who view alcohol as an OK or good thing, do not try to convince others to deny their convictions. For Christians who feel alcohol should be avoided, do not condemn or try to “reason with” those who feel differently. Ultimately, we need to understand that our convictions are formed by God and attacking someone because they are on the “wrong side” of the debate is never beneficial.

          Obviously this can be said about almost every disagreement in the church. Whether it be baptism, worship styles, gender roles, or a host of other conviction-based debates, it’s important to remember that we should encourage one another to be more like Christ, rather than more like us. With that said, I want to share my personal conviction about alcohol use.

         For me, it has rarely been a question of whether or not I should drink because my dad never drank. I realize how weak of an argument that is when I am faced with temptation, but it is also representative of how much I respect my dad and how important parental influence can be. Growing up I always wanted to be just like my dad and the fact that he never drank alcohol has had a lasting impression on me. Since my childhood however, I have developed a much more solidified position on alcohol.
The central force in guiding me towards my position on alcohol has been my experience with its negative effects. I have witnessed my friends’ fathers abandon them, relationships wrecked by them, and have watched numerous friends end up arrested because of alcohol. While I’m sure the majority of these issues were primarily caused by immaturity rather than alcohol, the fact that it is addicting, readily available, and a socially acceptable way to deal with life’s problems has lead me to want nothing to do with it. Similar to the way I avoid other addicting behaviors, I have had to recognize that I wouldn’t be able to resist the temptation.
When I look at the many struggles I’ve had in the past, whether it be impulsive lying or pornography, I can’t deny that when faced with a choice between being responsible or being selfish, I try to grab as much as I can as fast as I can. I know that if there is even a chance that this could ruin my relationships with my parents, siblings, future wife or family, then I want absolutely nothing to do with it.

One final thought. When I think about whether Christians should or shouldn’t drink alcohol, I am reminded of Colossians 2:16-23 when Paul instructs us to not condemn or judge other Christians based on “proper” behavior. And as he says in verse 23, “Such regulations...lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.” Having strict rules governing how I should behave or think doesn’t make me a Christian. Trusting the fact that Christ died for someone who rarely does the “right” thing and who always concerns himself with what other people think is what allows me to turn to Him when I am weak.

Tuesday, December 6, 2011


This is a continuation of my “what does it mean to be a man?” series.  The first post can be found here.
          To be a man means to have integrity.  All the great men I have ever know have been men of integrity.  Whenever I have heard men talk about what it means to be a man, they talk about integrity.  While these aren’t my only reasons to write about integrity, they have definitely bolstered my view of its importance.  I hope to both define this word, which is commonly overused/misused, and to argue for its importance in defining what it means to be a man.
          The most common definition I hear for integrity is in relating to what someone does when no one is looking.  In other words, do you do the right thing when it is not directly beneficial to you?  If no one is going to praise you for your good works, or condemn you for your foolish actions, what will you choose to do?  While this is certainly a useful definition, it lacks a complete application.  First, how often are you making decisions for which you won’t be judged?  Second, if you have an aversion to doing what is right, wouldn’t that ultimately spill into all areas of your life?  While I do like this definition for it’s simplicity, there is a much more practical and true definition.  Integrity means wholeness of character.
          This definition presents much more difficulty in explanation, but does not confine itself to any particular situation.  Wholeness of character means that a man does not change who he is depending on his situation.  Whether he is with his family, friends, at church, at home, at school, at work, alone, or with others, he is the same man.  It also means that whether he is angry, happy, upset, annoyed, excited, or depressed, he does not alter how he handles the circumstances of life.  Now this may sound like I am saying men should be dull and emotionless, which far too many men (including myself) are prone to be.  Instead, I am saying that men should not be so easily overcome with outside influences when they are called to lead.  Instead of drawing upon fear, pride, ignorance, or selfishness, men should be predisposed to patience and compassion.  Instead of allowing the situation to dictate how they should react, men need to look beyond the now and towards the future.  The easiest way to do this is to plan.
         In my life, planning has been both a blessing and a curse.  I enjoy planning out my day, planning out what I want to do/buy/eat, planning basically anything.  It allows me to build anticipation while instilling confidence that I will succeed.  However, planning is also a chore.  Often I want to just “try it out right now” instead of figuring out if it will work.  Men regularly choose immediate results over lasting solutions.  That is why it is vital that if a man is to live in integrity, he must plan his reactions.  Again, I am not saying men should ever be logical robots, but rather they should be reasonable decision makers, who never allow emotions to dictate unwarranted reactions.  Integrity requires that a man knows beforehand how he will react.  When he is faced with injustice how does he react?  Does he react with blind opposition fueled by uncontrolled anger, with confident confrontation fueled by a heart for the oppressed, or with cowardly passivity fueled by fear?  While these reactions do reflect one’s character in general, in a given situation they reflect one’s integrity.  By planning how you will react to events regardless of their location, environment, or circumstances, you can begin to build your integrity.  All of this may be good, but at the end of the day why does it matter?
          I’ve heard far to many people tell me that integrity is important because God demands it, or because it secures one’s reputation, or because it prevents many problems that exist without it.  While all of these are true and important, they miss the point.  Integrity is important because it allows a man’s character to be solidified.  All men desire to be respected, and the only way to earn true respect is to remain who you are when everyone is doubting your manhood.  In that sense, integrity is what you do when everyone is watching.  When the people around you are allowed to see into your heart, and you are not ashamed of what’s hidden simply because nothing is.  A life of integrity is a life of openness and wholeness.

How the Gospel Creates Integrity
          The gospel creates integrity not because it makes us sinless or perfect, but because it allows us to live openly without fear.  No man can live a life he is truly proud of; in fact, pride only comes when we cover all of our regrets and flaws.  The gospel creates integrity by not covering or removing our flaws, but by paying for them.  No longer are we defined by what we do, say, or think, but rather by the one who loves us.  It is impossible to live a life of integrity apart from Christ because you will always fear the judgement of others, always doubt the value of yourself, and never be able to be completely and vulnerable with anyone.  In Christ there is no longer judgement, you are called immeasurably valuable, and total intimacy with God is not only a possibility, but your greatest desire.  The gospel creates integrity because it allows a man to be open and whole, without insecurity.