the "narrow gate"

We are told in the summary of the Sermon on the Mount, "for narrow is the gate that leads to life and few will find it." This is quite familiar to Christians and provides for sound theology. BUT, in what ways does this truth infiltrate and influence lives of Christians in our culture today? In what ways do we try to widen the gate or maybe even go around it?


Here is what I have learned as my life's work these days focuses on how flawed human nature wars against the life that God desires for us. It is built into our very human nature to avoid the exercises and diets necessary to slim down for the narrow gate of the Kingdom. It's not natural and quite uncomfortable to shed excess baggage we carry around that feeds a soul comfortable with "walking according to the flesh."

This is true not only of us pedestrian Christians but of those who lead us, those who head Christian universities, churches, and ministries. As I have been a part of marketing b4Worldview to such institutions, what have I found that suggests this may be the case?

While most legitimate Christians and their leaders can readily profess sound theology about the Gospel of Grace and a life lived under God's sovereign love, virtue ethics seems to be the end game of Christianity that manifests itself to those "looking in." Maybe this is the way it is because many Christians and their leaders also emphasize right behavior and that the Gospel is a palliative remedy to human pain in their teaching, prayer and worship activities. Foremost, Christians are led to change the culture to an ethic they view as Biblical. Yet, in doing so they are no different than the rest of humanity, seeking a better way not a new way. Many young people brought up in these contexts abandon what they are taught only to seek an alternative virtue ethics.

Why are Christian leaders so protective of their message of virtue ethics and reluctant to explore ways to help their flock "be transformed by the renewing of their minds"? Why is "good" more about fitting into a prescription of what a person does to positively affect others rather than the intrinsic quality within them that comes only from intimacy with Christ? Why is purpose about what we can produce and not about faithfulness in our pursuit? Why is God's favor a righteousness of exchange with the Father rather than receiving a generous, willful action from the Father?

Here is a perspective I have found by working with Christians and their leaders for the past several years. The "market" for Christian products and services responds more to an Aristotelian view of life's goal where happiness is a personal pursuit and production of virtues such as justice, courage, kindness and such. This ideal is universal in the human condition and has BROAD appeal to people. Why? Because Aristotle captured the essence of human nature, the idea built-in each of us that humans have the power to produce the right life, and what we experience via physical senses is what determines reality. BUT, wasn't this the error of Adam and Eve? Isn't Aristotle's philosophy about the natural power within each person just an excellent account of our fallen nature? Might this be what makes an appeal attractive to many people, or a BROAD gate?

NARROW is the market comprised of those who are motivated to receive and reflect te light of God and trust only the power provided by the One they have a passionate love affair with, Jesus. This is a pure form of trust, not a trust underwritten by "our own understanding," not a trust dependent on outcomes but trust based on a relationship.

So, I have found that Christians and their leaders generally know the truth in their head, but worldly success depends on attracting customers with a market appeal which is BROAD and not one that is NARROW.

Might this be what Jesus wants us to know as He sums up His profound message to us?

Something worth pondering ......

The cultural con of diversity

Here you have two people, diverse in many ways. We can observe some differences. One is male and one is female. One can walk somewhat unaided. One uses a walker.

Some differences we cannot observe. They likely have different personalities, experiences, tastes in food and clothes. They probably are a married couple, but maybe not. Maybe neighbors or siblings? We don't know.


What we do know is they are working together to plant flowers. This is collaboration to accomplish a common goal. There is some coordination here. That helps collaboration. But how does appreciating each other's diversity contribute to their success?

That's the question diversity advocates really never ask. What makes diverse people collaborate? Is it shared experience? Is it a focus on valuing each other's differences? That's a possibility.

When two people demand their differences are what really matters, what generally happens? I suggest that collaboration anchored in diversity requires each participant to be aware of what they are giving up (sacrificing) to accommodate the other. This requires a sense of conditional love or respect based on social exchange. In other words, I give to the other in ways that results in reciprocal responses. The other person honors my giving by giving back in some sort of balanced way. This can be fulfilling and successful in many ways, as long as the joint efforts are fair.

Two people can be collaborating on a mutual goal, but there are limits to what each participant is willing to do based on justice.

There is another model for collaboration based on the idea of unity. You might say, "unity is accomplished in the above model of collaboration, isn't it?" I would say "NO." On what basis would I say mutual sacrifice based on diverse members committing to a common goal is NOT unity?

I go to model given to us in the Trinity. Throughout the Bible we read "the Father and the Son and the Spirit are one." We are called to be one with them. There is diversity, but in unity the diversity is not the point or focus of collaboration. Needs of the participants are not the issue. It's about like-mindedness. It's thinking EXACTLY the same way and a singleness of will. It's the same heartbeat, the same passion. It's not diverse parts considering what they are giving up for the others. In this model of unity, diversity dissipates, not intensifies.

The model in Scripture is the body. Yes, there is diversity in the parts. Arms are not like legs, which are not like ears. This is important. However, each part views everything through the lens of the head (Jesus). Each part never says to the other, "remember to value diversity - each of you that are different should consider me just as important as you. I will give myself (sacrifice) to the body, but I deserve to benefit somehow."

Total alignment of the soul of each member to the mind of Christ is what makes the body of Christ (the church) function in perfect collaboration for the glory of God.

That's a model of collaboration foreign to a culture that values the diversity, not the unity. There is no authoritative influence when honoring what is different is the point. This is a con perpetuated on the world fueled by a human nature that can only think that way, "by nature we are children of wrath."

"be transformed by the renewing of your mind."

This is probably worth pondering......

"beyond a shadow of a doubt"

Maybe with the exception of the Manson murders, OJ Simpson's trial may be the most famous judicial spectacle of my lifetime. I am not a lawyer, but the thing I remember most was that there was a criminal trial and a civil trial. In the criminal trial, the truth of murder had to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. When this failed to produce justice for the victims' family, they filed suit in civil court, where only a burden of probability of truth was required. 

This is an interesting example of how mankind gains the knowledge of what is true. This is called "epistemology." Rene Descartes, who many call the modern father of philosophy, explained finding truth this way (paraphrased): remain skeptical of what you think is true until you have removed all doubt and you are certain there is no more uncertainty. This sounds to me a bit like, "beyond a shadow of a doubt."

Descartes was a foundationalist versus a particularist. Now, don't check out on me here, this is not that complicated. All this means is that Descarte (foundationlist) believed you must peel away all the details that may obscure truth until you hit the bottom or root of something that you can trust to be true. This is much like scrapping away all the sand and debris that obscures solid ground until you hit pit gravel to trust with certainty you can lay the foundation for your house. This is opposed to those who believe there are no core principles, so they collect pieces of evidence until they have concluded there is a sufficient likelihood something is true (particularist). For something with significant consequences, like a murder trial, our legal system has decided we should be more foundationalist than particulaist. We must get to the core truth, "beyond a shadow of a doubt."

Descartes' ideas for finding truth have broad appeal and acceptance. It seems to work relatively well in finding truth in the physical world, but science can still be fraught with the limitations of particularists. So much so that any serious scientists knows that collecting details of evidence only demonstrates likelihood something is true under certain conditions, and nothing can actually be proved with 100% certainty.

Finding truth becomes much more problematic in dealing with the invisible, moralistic world. Many people are functioning particularists because they do not take the time or have the rational power to exhaust all doubt. So many become comfortable with their doubt. It's not practical to do otherwise.

However, some believe they are capable and willing to explore truth until they are certain of no more uncertainty. Eventually they find they are only fooling themselves and no one else. Even Aristotle, considered the most supreme philosopher, admitted that man can never be 100% sure using sensory perception and rational power to know what is true. Current behavioral economist Nassim Taleb calls this "epistemic arrogance," a condition that puts a person at great risk.

This is actually where faith comes in. Everybody has faith, but it seems to have been relegated to only religious circles. The truth is, everyone ultimately runs out of particulars and their faith becomes their foundation. Faith is the basic bias any person trusts while failing to remove visible uncertainty. A person's faith is the soul's sense of certainty there is no more uncertainty. Faith is our core trust in something. We have no more questions of "why?"

So, while much, if not all, of man's debate centers around what is true, maybe we should ponder more the question, "who or what do we trust?" Eliz Warren recently said, "my faith animates all that I do." This is true about faith, but not just for her, for everyone. What or who we trust deeply within our soul drives all that we are and do. Faith for each person is their "beyond a shadow of a doubt." 

It may be too scary to deeply ponder who/what you trust ....

"It doesn't really matter what I do"

Have you ever felt this way? You are told to set goals, try hard, make a difference, serve others - but at some point you question if what you do really matters. Life goes on, the people you try to help don't get better or maybe don't even listen. You feel in your heart you are serving others, doing good in this world  - but at some point you wonder if what you do really matters. I don't know about you, but this is one way my soul can throw its own pity party.




Of course there are times when it seems what we do is making a big difference. People tell us we are important in various ways. We seek feedback to signify to ourselves that we matter. You must admit that even when you say and believe that you are giving of yourself for nothing in return, that nothing doesn't include the notion that you still need to know - if what you do really matters.

When I was younger and working, it was built-in that my job mattered in some way. As a minimum, I was being paid by an employer for my work. Charitable giving and volunteer service was rewarding. I was always getting newsletters and hearing stories of how my giving was helping others. As a parent it mattered what I did to "produce perfect kids." Now, blogging and writing books is what I do. This is mainly a one way street. I throw my thoughts "out there" with very little idea of whether my words matter. Its easy for my mind and emotions to discover that what I do doesn't really matter anymore.

Its in times I throw my own little pity party that God reminds me that what I am writing and blogging does matter. It matters to Him. Its in my own pity party that God reminds me my main message to others is from my time with Him. What I generally write is what He has taught me - there are only TWO biases in the way we see life.

When I feel "it doesn't really matter what I do," I am trusting my human nature's idea that outcomes from what I do are what is important. Human psychology calls this Social Exchange. The Apostle Paul called this "walking according to the flesh." No matter how much I am serving others, I am in it for me. God has a better way. He desires that all my thoughts and feelings should flow from my intimacy with His Son Jesus. He chose me and acted on my behalf so that my soul is eternally fortunate (blessed) regardless of what I've done or is going on around me in this world. All I am supposed to do is reflect His glory by faithfully playing out what he calls on me to do. I do not need to ever question if it really matters as an outcome. This is His provision of grace. This is called "walking in the Spirit." Glory goes back to where it belongs.

How do I know? The Bible tells me so. 

You may have never thought about your life in this way. You may disagree with this in some way. Usually, all I ask of you is to ponder what I say. Today, I can't really even do that - that would be an expected outcome. What I do only matters because I faithfully give you what God has put in me, not because it will produce some great outcome. What God does with this in you is His business.

When I blog from my time with Jesus, there is a party but it never involves self pity.

Beware of the 'fair trap'

As a parent of teens, the statement I heard the most is, “dad, that’s not fair.” Throughout the ages sages will tell you, the greatest obsession of humans is fairness. At first you may assume this is no problem. Of course, being fair is important. True, but the problem is there is no answer to what is fair. It’s mankind’s greatest concern, and it has no answer. 

The need for situations and people to be fair is a trap and can take away your oxygen. Let me briefly explain. There are three ways to judge something as fair. Each is different from the others and each is subjective. Are you beginning to get the picture. Sometimes something is fair when people get what they deserve. This is called equity and is based on reciprocity. The criminal justice system and many reward systems in companies see fairness this way. Sometimes something is fair when everyone gets the same. This is called equality. Entitlement programs think things are fair when everyone gets the same. After all, "all men are created equal." Still others think something is fair when everyone gets what they need. Charities hand out goods and services based on what someone needs, not deserves and certainly mothers with children get more than single men because their needs are greater.

The problem is that what someone deserves, and giving everyone the same, or giving according to need are all totally different ways to be fair. Not only are there three totally different ways to be fair, each way may vary based on individuals’ views of what is fair. We can take this even further, psychologists have found that its not as much what the distribution of goods and services are that determines their fairness, but how (the process) was handled. There is a whole other criteria called procedural justice by which people judge something to be fair.

If you require life to be fair, you will likely be disappointed most of the time until you become quite cynical about the world’s ability to be fair to you. This is paralyzing and leaves you feeling lifeless, that life never works right for you. See, right is what’s fair and what’s fair is an illusion. Stuck in place, life’s not fair so why try.

For you to break out and not succumb to the “fair trap,” you must release the built-in need for life to be fair. This is not easy. It goes against everything inside you. What is the remedy? An attitude of gratitude, a sense of grace. Cultivate the ability to see all the blessings of life that have been freely given to you totally independent of what you deserve. Each person has gifts given to them just because they are born. You did nothing to get them. You even did nothing to deserve being born and the provision of your childhood. The air you breath every day, the abundance of food creation provides, the unconditional love of family and friends, and much more are the overwhelming gifts of life that is not fair. Being thankful that life is not fair instead of demanding life to be fair brings life.

I think that is worth pondering .....

Is "being normal" the goal?

Recently a mother of young children, all of which I love dearly, posted this on face book - "I just want to say publicly that being gay is normal, and my children are being instructed as such." It seemed by the rest of her post that she was pushing back on the evangelical community she grew up in to declare that she did not want that community to influence her children to see homosexuality and all of its extensions (such as marriage) as wrong.

To her, being gay is as normal as breathing. It's just built-in to the way some people are made.

It may surprise you that my response has nothing to do my opinion of her view on homosexuality. I was especially taken back by her celebration of "normal". She cannot mean normal is that everybody sees it the same way. It was clear in her post many disagree with her and thus this would not be "normal" for everybody. The context seemed to mean that homosexuality is natural for some people and therefore it should be seen by everyone as OK.

So, I am assuming she means that whatever is "natural" should not be met with any challenge as to its acceptability. This would mean then that when a 2 year bites a playmate for stealing their toy, its OK. It is certainly "natural" for some toddlers. I guess its also OK for an 8 year old to not admit they broke mother's vase when they did. It is quite "natural" for a child to lie when they do something wrong. What about an 18 year old male whose hormones "naturally" rage to a point they see women as sexual objects. I guess that is OK since it is quite natural for many teen boys. I guess its OK too when a 30 year female employee seduces her boss in order to get ahead in her career. It's quite "natural" for many women to go that route.

Lori Loughlin claims she did nothing wrong in the college admissions scandal. "Any parent would have done the same thing if they were in that position." In other words, her actions were "only normal" for a mom who loved her children and wanted the best for them. Should I go on?

If many behaviors are questionable by some as to their appropriateness, but occur "naturally" in people, how do we know when "natural" (normal) is OK or not? Who decides what is normal? This becomes especially problematic if the parent wishes their children to be raised as a Christian. It may surprise you again that I have no interest or way to "list" behaviors that Christians should deem as OK, including being gay. I have another point about raising Christian kids. It is this:

Being "normal" is THE problem. If "normal" is what's natural, then everything "normal" is outside of God's desire for us because our nature is flawed. Jesus teaches in the Sermon on the Mount that its  natural for humans to pursue and produce good behavior (virtue and ethics) so they can be seen by whoever cares as OK. Its not natural to desire a relationship with Christ above all else. Nothing about the human condition naturally "seeks first the Kingdom of Heaven." Everything about human nature trusts its own power to know what is right or wrong. Everything in human nature wants self to be glorified. This was the serpent's invitation to Eve - to trust herself to know good and evil.

I agree with this young mother there are issues with how the evangelical church has addressed the Christian response to cultural questions. In fact, Christian leaders obsession with culture most often ignores the issue with nature. I would encourage this young mother (and any other that desires eternal life) to ponder what it means to be abnormal, to be something completely different than what their human nature demands of them. To see that being a "new creation" is to not "be enticed by our own desires." I would want those desiring God to have the soul's goal of knowing Jesus in a profound and intimate way. Christians should "naturally" be motivated to receive and reflect the treasure put into their earthen vessel, not of their own power but of God's. "Walking in the Spirit" is normal living in the privilege and provisions of the Heavenlies.

In the human condition being normal is trusting ourselves for the well being of our soul. My problem is not with homosexuality or any other idea of life that is seen as "being normal." My view of the problem occurs when "being normal" from the world' perspective is the goal. 

Why capitalism has a "black eye"

Recently South Street Partners bought the Cliffs Communities. One of the first items of business was to buyout the Cliffs Members who had loaned the Clubs $60 M during the financial crisis to keep the communities afloat.

The new owners had several options:
1) do nothing,
2) make as small of an offer as possible to "satisfy the note holders"
3) see this buyout as an opportunity to demonstrate they are an ethical group of business men who will be fair to those they do business with, especially their clients at this high end golfing and retirement community.

They sent out an offer, which appears to be option 2, asking for "indications of interest." I took the opportunity to reply with a perspective that this offer was an opportunity for them to build trust with their clients, and they came up short. I chose to blog this as an example of how businesses should view their actions in ways beyond just immediate financial considerations that benefit them. This memo to them will likely be ignored. I have no illusion it will matter, and that's why capitalism is being questioned by regular people (especially the millennial) who fall prey to "big business."

Here is the content of my memo:

In your recent solicitation to the note holders, you say you are asking for “indications of interest.” While I can show my level of interest by checking a box, I feel I should also provide a more thorough perspective that I, as a note holder, have regarding your offer. I was a business executive for over 20 years (12 years as an executive committee VP with Coca Cola Consolidated in Charlotte). I have taught Business Strategy to college students, preparing them to be ethical professionals. So, my perspective is not uninformed.

Generally, note holders' interest will be driven by emotion and principle, since none of the options you provided is a significant nor reasonable financial choice. For instance, I am disappointed in the way you structured the payout. Depending on whether I assume 3% or 5% avg annual cost of money, your payout options are anywhere from 30% to 50% below the present value of the current payout agreement.

This means you are willing to make a deal with current clients in which the benefits accrue quite asymmetrically to you. Many, including me, will see this as an unethical action on your part, which basically says you are planting the seeds of mistrust with your clients of the Cliffs Communities.

I understand you have the leverage to “squeeze out” of the note holders a significantly discounted payout. You should also understand that ethics is when the person with power does NOT take undue advantage of others for selfish benefit. Ethics is about the principles of fairness. The payout option you are offering is well below the present value of the current deal, which was suboptimal from the start. The note holders are the committed members who “stood up” in difficult times for the sake of the community.

I will not hesitate to share this with others when asked about my view of your deal. You own your character reputation by choices you make. For one of the first major actions as owners, you will not be endearing yourself to members.

You may accomplish your financial goals, but you will lose in the hearts of your clients.