Is Christianity just another coping mechanism?

Psychologists study coping as the human response to stress. Stress can come in the form of discouragement, discomfort, depression, despair, disillusionment, dissatisfaction, or any other "D " word that represents disequilibrium.  



Studies show that the main three coping responses are fight, flight or tend. Some think males are more likely to fight or flight and females to tend or befriend.

More recent studies focus on emotion regulation, which is the process of dealing with negative emotions of in one of two ways. The most common and most destructive way to keep from acting on negative feelings of stress is to suppress the felt emotion. This in essence buries the emotion deep inside the person, only to emerge sometimes later in unsuspected forms of outburst or withdrawal. 

What psychologists have found that is the healthiest and most effective way to deal with situations causing stress is to reappraise. This involves thinking about the situation in different ways so that the negative felt emotion does not continue to occur. Some call this seeing a problem as an opportunity or the power of positive thinking.

Here's where my question comes in. As I listen to preaching and go to Bible studies, invariably the topic is dealing with the struggles of life. The Bible is quoted providing God's character and promises. These are true, but they seem to be presented more in light of reappraisal, or some human scheme to think differently about the situation. While this can be helpful, how does the world see Christianity as anything but another form of coping.

For instance, I have really appreciated the preaching I have been receiving recently at a new church we are attending. The pastor has been quite thorough and on target with his messages of the Gospel. Today he preached on the Beatitude, "blessed are the meek." This is a verse I was just thinking about as I blogged on Spot a day or so ago.

http://profoncall.blogspot.com/2016/02/understanding-how-we-are-bred.html

The pastor said the word "meek" is not about being "weak." To that I agree. He then says that meek really means "strength under control" and proceeds to explain the 3 ways we can control our thoughts to feel less discouraged about the situation we are in. I am thinking, "how is this different from the human practice of reappraisal?" He made me uneasy and seemed to feed right into my concern about this question, "Is Christianity just another coping mechanism?"

What did he miss? Why is Christianity not just another way to cope with stress? Here's why. The word "meek" does mean the strength of control, but whose control? The word was used in its original form to explain a domesticated animal or pet. It means having our thoughts and emotions completely under the control of the master. Spot is under Gail's control. He does not provide the capability and desire to control himself to meet her expectations. He is not doganly (instead of humanly)capable, rather he submits his will to her. This is what trained pets do. Spot submits his will, not reappraise his situations. He is totally sold out to Gail as his master. he thinks she is everything. Now occasionally his nature takes over and he disobeys Gail. I suspect that is what happens to us too.

However, the Christian life is one where our power comes from submission not vice versa. Plus, submission comes from adoration and thanksgiving, not duty and obligation. That is, what is different? This is what makes the life of a Christian full of joy, like Spot, regardless of the situation.  

While the difference in reappraisal and submission may seem subtle, it is profound and life changing. While repentance does mean reappraisal or change the mind. The change is that we are trusting our master, which reduces our stress, and not our own ability to handle our stress. I am sad the pastor failed to take the congregation across that bridge into glory. It was the right direction, just not far enough.

We need to always be ready to ponder the message of the Gospel and whether what we receive takes us across that bridge, beyond human endeavor ....     

Common Grace

"the rain falls on the just and the unjust." You may have heard this statement before and maybe even read it many times. BUT, have you really pondered it?

I have blogged recently about justice and how our culture has hijacked it's meaning and in doing so we have lost a very important ageless truth. Justice is the immutable law governing all of creation that we get what we deserve, and by deserve I mean in reference to what we have done. "We reap what we sow." However, our culture has redefined "deserve" to mean rights to benefits that society owes everyone, such as an education, food, and health care.

There are political and economic consequences to society that relate to this warped view of "deserve." This is very prevalent in our public discourse in this political season (which never ends btw). However, there is a much greater risk to missing the point of justice than our economics and public policy.

When we grasp that justice is an ageless truth and that we get what we deserve, what then do we do with those things we receive we don't deserve? This pic is of the stars and galaxies. We get to see them and wonder about them and we did nothing to have that privilege. What about the care we received as a small child? With some exceptions, most small children are given what they need by their parents just because they are the parents and love their children. the children did nothing to deserve it.

There are so many more examples of what is bestowed on us when we did nothing to get it, like the ocean and mountain views, rain for the crops, sunshine for a picnic, and so forth. How do we reconcile these gifts in a world where justice is required? By redefining justice for our own personal benefit, we miss the most amazing reality possible. We lose the awe and wonder of what is given to us, free and clear of any obligation.

The free gifts bestowed on everyone that has ever and will live without doing anything to deserve it is called common grace, unmerited favor. Without the true sense and awareness of being subjected to the laws of justice, we can never appreciate common grace.

When we cannot grasp the magnitude and awesomeness of common grace, we cannot receive the Saving Grace.

Now that's worth some pondering .....  

Understanding how we are bred

My wife is a dog person, I am not. BUT, i have watched her with Spot, her Jack Russell. Spot is a well trained dog. He doesn't jump on the furniture. He doesn't bark unnecessarily. He goes outside always to do his business. He is a smart dog that knows exactly what is expected of him.
Spot loves to go on walks. When the lease goes on, he is ready to go. He sniffs and pees, pees and sniffs, RELENTLESSLY. However, as long as he is on the lease, he always moves or stops on command.



We live in the mountains in a relatively quiet neighborhood, with woods and open spaces. Occasionally, my wife is feeling confident about Spot's behavior and she lets him off the lease. Most of the time Spot keeps just sniffing and wandering around like he loves to do. BUT, eventually Spot detects a moving critter. like a squirrel. Then he is off for the chase. My wife is screaming for him to stop but he relentlessly pursues the chase. 

 Spot was bred to chase. In most situations he behaves as he was trained to act. However, eventually he does what he was made to do. He loves to chase. Built into Spot is a natural identity (he has the nature of a Jack Russell dog) and a personal identity (he has his own personality).

Spot's social identity is that he is Gail's dog. He lives in a specific neighborhood with other dogs that are his friends. He has patterns of behavior at the dog park when all the community's dogs gather each afternoon to socialize.

Like Spot, we each have all three identities. We have our human nature and all that goes with it. We have a personal identity that makes us unique. AND, we have a social identity formed by our communities, such as family, work place, local and national cultures.

Like Spot, most often our social identity constrains our personal and natural identity. It works OK for us because it offers us many benefits when we conform to demands of our social settings. BUT, sometimes we must let go, be who we are and meant to be. We must "chase that which runs". Human behavior, choices we must make. Often we can control our choices, but sometimes our personal and natural identity takes over. Maybe that is not always a bad thing. 

Knowing how we are bred and being free enough to live it out may actually be a good thing. Sometimes it is not even a choice, but instinct.

Just something to ponder ....

Social Justice: the king of fraud

I know this title tests your resolve. You are now saying, "what is this crazy man talking about now?" How can Social Justice be the king of fraud? Everyone is in favor of Social Justice. It's the king of virtue,not fraud. I must be as "politically incorrect" as one can be. So bear with me and let me make my case. BTW, I am not the only one who has reached this conclusion.

Here's the summary point:
Social justice divides people, not unify them. Social justice produces a contest for who's the judge.

Let me focus this blog on what is social justice? what is fraud? and why is social justice a fraud perpetuated on society? First of all, fraud is easy to discuss. Fraud is basically a legal term used to refer to intentional deception for personal gain. I do not advocate that every proponent of social justice is intentionally defrauding others. Yet, if you participate in  a ponzi scheme, you are in some way guilty of fraud, although you are unknowingly perpetuating the fraud.

Social Justice is a much more complex topic. I have blogged about justice before, but it has been quite a few years.

 If you google "social justice", you'll get something like this from the premier authority, Wikipedia: "Social justice is the fair and just relation between the individual and society." As usual, this definition is problematic. Justice is technically not fairness, but a special form of fairness. Justice and Fairness are not isomorphic (excuse me, isomorphic means "exactly the same or identical in every way"). Justice is an obsession of human nature.

Justice is a scale, the balance between what people receive relative to what they do. Justice usually refers to getting what one deserves, either a reward for good or punishment for bad. However, the judgment of what is just is highly subjective.

There are other forms of fairness besides justice. One is equality, one is need and one is generosity. When everyone gets the same or when everyone gets what they need or when someone gives from their own abundance, then we often say that "this is fair." Since people choose among the the various forms of fairness to determine if something is "right" (another word for fair"), then fairness is subjective in many ways.

So far, we have seen that fairness is complex and subjective and justice is technically just one form of fairness. What is it that society wants when it advocates "social justice"?  First, the notion of social justice is relatively new throughout all of history. It was ushered in by the Renaissance and Reformation some 500 years ago. Social justice is simply code for human rights.

The current cultural notion of justice abandons the single idea of reciprocity (we get what we deserve) and rewrites the notion of "deserve" from one's performance to include equality, needs, and generosity. Equality has been hijacked to mean "sameness." Needs are subject to individual preference. Generosity is what others think people who have more than they do should do to be fair. The question of one's rights or what someone deserves cannot be answered by one voice of society. Justice requires a judge. Thus, one of the benefits of power is to control what happens in society for the "sake of social justice." The one with power becomes the judge.

One critic of social justice put it this way, "since the program of social justice inevitably involves claims for government provision of goods, paid for through the efforts of others, the term actually refers to an intention to use force to acquire one's desires. Not to earn desirable goods by rational thought and action, production and voluntary exchange, but to go in there and forcibly take goods from those who can supply them!" Or, in other words, social justice is a redistribution of goods based on who can become the judge.

Obama did not invent social justice, but he is an iconic advocate of using its deception for gaining personal power. He is not alone. I hear social justice as the calling card of the church, especially works oriented faiths such as Catholics, Nazarenes, Wesleyans, and even mainstream reformed denominations. The fraud od social justice finds its way into every form of society who needs to use its deception for its own purposes.

Basically, Social Justice has become the primary agency in which man aspires to be God. As far as I know, there is no claim man can make to absolute truth except the Bible. Science and Philosophy have arguably denounced absolute truth. Therefore, social justice for many people is man's permission to apply relative truth for personal gain, even if the gain is to satisfy guilt or obtain virtue by works. Fairness is the king of relativism, which is the main weapon culture uses to fraud or deceive by forcing the desires of those in power on others.

If you think I am crazy, consider this. The Founding Fathers created the Constitution and Bill of Rights to protect individuals in society from the federal government seeking the power to determine who deserves what. They foresaw that people would seek power over others in the name of justice. For the past 150 years this is what has happened. Social justice has been the fraud by which some individuals have sought power to control what people do.

For those who accept God as the source of absolute truth, what does God say about Justice? First, He says we are created in His image. In this sense we are created equal, but we are not equal in ability, personality, socio-economic advantage, etc. While theologians don't exactly agree on what "in His image" means, most agree it deals more with being His representative, placing our identity into His original intent.

What about rights and what we deserve? What does God say about that? Well, I hate to bring the bad news, He says we deserve Hell and we have no rights. Jesus says that if someone in authority asks us to go one mile, which they can rightfully do, then go 2 miles, which they have no right to ask us to do. In other words, the Kingdom of God is not about rights in this world. Jesus' legal rights were violated over 40 times on his last day on earth. He could have fixed that if that was His purpose. As we said, the US Bill of Rights is not God's description of what we deserve. They are simply a reaction by the founding fathers to the historical experience of man's sovereignty and government abuse. They were established to protect individuals from the power of the government to be the absolute judge. We have no inalienable rights granted to us by God. All we have is what He decides to supply us. We are pilgrims and sojourners.

But there is Good News, we should not fear because He willfully desires to give us all He has. Even Jesus says He didn't come this time to judge right and wrong, but to provide a pathway home.

This is called Grace. God, through our faith in the redemptive work of the Cross, offers to us the provisions and privileges of the Heavenlies. From receiving this Grace, we then willfully serve. We give generously because we recognize its not ours in the first place. We are not the agents of justice. God is the perfect balance of Justice and Love, not us. Christians are caught up in the fraud of Social Justice when they believe they must get into the struggle for power to judge what people deserve.


We are created to be light, agents of Grace, and we perpetuate fraud when we are deceived to claim our role as the judge.

Evidence not seen: the view beneath worldview

Your worldview is the way you make sense of reality. Your worldview determines for you what is right and wrong. At the heart of right and wrong is what is truth. So at the core of your worldview is whether you believe truth is absolute or relative. While truth is perceived fact, absolute truth is independent of perspective. Relative truth would be fact as determined by the individual or situation.

For instance, most people would view gravity as an absolute truth. If you jump off of a building, you will fall to the ground at a speed based on your body weight. 

The issue with worldview usually comes with moral or spiritual truths. Facts where the evidence is not seen or observed by human senses and scientific experiments. One such area of truth deals with life and death. Most societies either instinctively or through some religious conviction accept the truth that humans should not willingly take the life of another human. This seems to be an absolute truth until society identifies acceptable exceptions, like capital punishment, war, self defense, euthanasia, and even abortion.  

There will be some purists who say truth is absolute and killing is never justified, no matter the situation. However, most societies have justified "killing" for practical reasons in situations where other absolute truths, such as justice, can or must be applied. When there are situations that justifiably alter an "absolute truth", then the door is open for many people to claim truth is relative. This is where worldview becomes complex and divisive. When absolute truth seems to have situations where the truth does not apply, conflicts arise over what is right and what is wrong because exceptions give rise to subjective views from different members of society. The argument for relativism seems to be made stronger. When evidence for truth is not physically seen, then core assumptions influence each individual's position on truth. Core assumptions might be called the view beneath worldview.

I have a friend who is a smart guy and generally economically savvy with his own money. He made the statement that socialism is probably necessary to some point, but not good when taken to an extreme. I was curious so i asked him why he thought this was true? His response, "everyone deserves some basic amount of education, health care, food and housing, etc." His core assumption that "everyone deserves something" was normal for him until I asked him, "why does anyone deserve anything? This means that someone else is forced to provide it to them." He thought a minute and said, "I don't know." Here was a core assumption based on instinctive sense of justice and beyond his awareness, from which all other views of truth about public policy and economics flowed. Seeing that his core assumption was not true changed his understanding on many views of truth in more obvious areas of life.

Your core assumptions are critical to your life's choices for two reasons. One is that all of your streams of consciousness on economics, work, government, family, education and religion flow from your core assumptions. Second, you probably do not even know what your core assumptions are because they exist beneath your normal levels of awareness.

That's why pondering the view beneath your worldview is fascinating and essential....

"Self": serve, deny or eradicate?

Without a doubt the biggest cultural movement in the Western world, if not the whole world, is for people to find themselves - you must get in touch with "true self". "You must love yourself before you can love anyone else."

I have blogged about the problems with "self journey" previously, but the knee-jerk reaction to this journey of bias and deception can be just as problematic. People who desire to be more spiritual and pious flock to the other extreme noting the Biblical call to "deny self". Like most journeys fueled by sincerity and passion, the message is not always well understood.



Two points before I make my feeble attempt, (1) I don't have all the answers but I ponder it a lot and (2) this is not really new.

Let me make a simple reference to the second point first. The issue with "self" focus is as old as humanity itself. While cultures may have been more collectivist throughout history, there are references to people choosing to get their own way from the beginning of recorded history. Regardless of emphasis on the community over an obsession with the individual, it is clear we all are "fearfully and wonderfully made." We are individuals and can't get over it.

Now for point number one. My pondering is all I have to offer.

The notion of salvation suggests that each person has some keen interest in the destiny of their own soul. Death and eternal life is a personal experience. Society we live in and heaven or hell on the other side of this life do have a collection of people, but we can only experience it through "self".

 Have you ever wondered if the desire for salvation is self-serving? 
It is a personal ambition is it not?

How is the Christian life, even if it is one of service, not serving self at its foremost core benefit? Even when John Wesley was living the most self-deprived existence, he was trying to accomplish something for him-SELF, become a Holy self. Historically monks try to remove all creature comforts from life but they can't get away from "self".

Paul says be transformed, become a new creation. he does not say become NO creation or "be gone with self". Jesus says deny self, but He says it within context of not losing your soul, not going away.

So what do these three words mean?

serve - to act as a minister of, to work for
deny - to refrain from or abstain
eradicate - to destroy thoroughly

The soul has needs, such as purpose, joy, freedom, hope, love and belonging. Life, in the moment and forever, is not serving, denying or eradicating these needs. They are what they are. Our soul is what it is. Its the created intent of God.

Serving self is when we believe we can generate what is necessary to satisfy these needs. Denying self is abstaining from getting these needs met through self's own efforts, and eradicate is to destroy the nature of the flesh that instinctively seeks exchange with circumstances around us to get our needs met.

God gave us self, but He also bestows on us everything we need for self's abundant and virtuous life. Faith in the redemptive work of Jesus gives us the heart to serve, and everything we need for our soul so that we do not have to spend our attention and self resources on getting our own needs met.

Walking in the Spirit is a self that fearlessly and boldly moves out with no anxiety, guilt, or oppression because we need nothing but what God has already provided.

Self is created for good, just not for the purpose of being its own advocate and "self-sufficient" ....

The BIGGER stage

Too often we make sense of life without moving beyond a preoccupation with self. Pride keeps us locked in the room of self deception, and we see things through a warped understanding. We lift up our soul to what is false. We would do well to locate ourselves on a BIGGER stage, see ourselves in a community far wider than our immediate needs and networks. Where does your imagination take you? Where do your needs take you?

This BIGGER stage is called history.

For thousands of years we find that God has judged nations and people. We don't like to see God as judge because it doesn't play well into our self-serving illusion that the world was created for our glory.

From the time Esau sold Jacob his birthright, there have been rivals to God's glory. There have been periods when God's rivals get the upper hand on God's people, such as the Edomites did with Israel. Each time God brings total desolation to anything that opposes His glory. History shows that people trust in the treasures, the wisdom, the allies, and the fortresses that they collect and hold dear through the pride that they did this through their own efforts.

The BIGGER stage of history reveals two consistent truths about the pride that deceives those seeking their own glory. First, all of these benefits ultimately betray those who think that what they have gives them a personal advantage over God's purposes. Second, these are gifts from God that are possessed by a proud heart.

This perspective is especially salient to our nation today. We are in political disarray. God's people have held dear to our country as a blessing from God. We have many advantages in our Constitution, our economics, and our freedoms. We must be careful that we not be deceived, that we not see these benefits pridefully as our advantage and remember that God does what He does for His glory.

Finding our true self outside the BIGGER stage is a flattering allegiance to bias and deception!

The BIGGER stage of history constantly reveals to us that God judges and desolates not to harm us, but to love us into Grace and out of deception.

Just a passing thought I wanted to ponder ....

Relativism: why does it feel so right?

This is a picture posted from someone in Pakistan who subscribes to Jainism. While an eastern Hindu oriented worldview, it has followers around the world. For westerners, the symbol (left) may suggest to us that this is not for us. But do not be distracted by the optics, many of people in all cultures are attracted to the Jainism, whether they call it that or not.

Jainism claims that society does best when three principles are embraced by its members - non aggression, non possession, and relativism. Don't fight each other, don;t hoard goods and let everyone believe as they wish. The result is a society full of peace, love and harmony. How can anybody be against that?

Interesting, the advocates for Jainism made two posts recently on Linkedin. One post was lamenting the destruction of the Jainish Temple in Lahore, Pakistan. The other post was praising the Muslin leaders in Middle East countries for denouncing and standing up against the perpetrators of violence Islamic extremism.

Do any of you see the problem with this picture. First, why would they lament the destruction of their Temple if they do not value possession? Isn't owning a Temple a possession? And why would they be upset if there are people who want a train to run where the Temple stood? Don't these people who want a train have a right to what they believe?

What about the Islamic extremist? Don't they have a right to their beliefs? Relativism means that there is no moral superiority among people groups. If people can believe whatever they want, then you may want to fight them on economic or political grounds, but you can't fight them on moral grounds. Oh, by the way, why is there support for the aggressive stance against Islamic extremists? Where's the peace, love, and harmony with them?

The fact is Jainism is not really any different than every culture in the world. Each believe that there exists a set of behaviors that members in society can exchange for the benefit of the society. Fair exchange is the virtue by which society prospers. However, when truth is relative, it is impossible for the "virtues" of society to all be realized. Relativism means anyone's exchange is considered a virtue as long as it is fair. But fair to whom? Fairness is subjective, too. What's fair to one person violates another's rights. That's why we see advocates of tolerance the loudest voices against conservatism in the US. What sense does that make?

We feel relativism and its twin tolerance is right and virtuous because we don't trust what we believe to be absolute truth. Its kind of an "honor system" we have with each other, "I won't impose my flawed believes on you if you won't impose yours on me."

Therefore, relativism feels good because it feels virtuous, but in reality relativism is not virtuous. Any action by anyone is accepted as right as long as it is what they believe. Virtue exists when actions produce actual harmony, not an aspiration of harmony that cannot be realized by competing self-serving semblances of  "virtue".

It "feels good" to eat whatever we want. But a healthy body does not result and we eventually do not "feel very good" when we are over weight and out of shape. There is a truth about what puts all of the body in harmony with itself. Aligning our actions to this truth is what matters, not what we each one feels like doing.

Only when that which is absolutely true is what everyone orders their lives around will a society rise above self-serving relativism. Absolute truth makes "feeling good" a reality, not an illusion. Only then is there peace, love and harmony.

Defined by the DOLLAR

I don't do financial blogs as a rule, but what the heck. I went on a walk and was moved by the Spirit to share this model, especially to the young folks who are early in their journey.

First, you must ask yourself, not what is my financial goal, but what is the way I want to define myself. Unfortunately our culture wants to define us by the income line. How much money somebody makes is way too often the focus. Although you do earn it, what income you get over your life is heavily influenced by what others do on your behalf. But what you do with your money is really more about who you are than what you make. Its not the gold line (above) that paints your portrait, but the way the other three lines flow and relate to each other.

It is often said that there are only three things you can do with money
      Spend or consume it on your LIFESTYLE
      SAVE it or the reverse of saving is borrow it
      GIVE it away

What you do in each of these three categories are influenced by your priorities and your priorities reflect who your are. There is no magic formula for you to follow, but you do need to be intentional and strategic about your choices or you will become something different over time than what you intend and the way you want to be viewed by others. This is called late life REGRET.

You should first start with a principle that you decide in your soul is your life's priority. Hedonistic principles would be to have the most pleasurable lifestyle possible, even if it involves debt. A priority of safety would be to save as much as possible to guard against life's uncertainties. A charitable identity would come from a strategy to give away as much as possible and increase the rate of giving across time.

The chart above is a graph of how the latter strategy might look like across one's adult life. The choices made across time include leveling off lifestyle spending in hunks of thirds. That is after the first roughly 15 years, reduce the rate of increase and then after 30 years reduce it again (the number of years are just guidelines, not absolutes). The Saving trajectory is driven by little or no savings in the first 10 years or so, accelerating savings in the middle 20 years, and then leveling off savings in the later years. This produces an increasing rate of savings across your lifetime assuming income follows a normal path of accelerating in years 5 through 35 and then leveling off as one approaches or reaches "retirement".

Now, I understand every person and family will be different for many good reasons. The point of the blog is this - you should visualize across time with a chart like this what you want your life to reflect given an expectation of income. I know none of us control the future and there can be many events that alter what you really do. However, at any and all points in your life you should have a picture of these four lines and how they travel across time in relationship to one another.    

Don't get distracted by financial goals and multi-year plans. They certainly are an illusion of control. In each moment, you have a choice of what to do with income you receive. See every dollar of income as following along one of these three lines, like a paint brush painting your portrait. Imagine that it was a graph of LIFESTYLE, SAVING, and GIVING that was put on display in the final day of your life, rather than a flattering portrait.

Now that's worth pondering .....

Did Jesus have gout?

What should I feel when I lose my cell phone, my printer breaks or I have a car accident? What if i sink a 10 ft putt and win the Club Championship? Jesus didn't experience any of those circumstances.

At first glance you might think this is a bit sacrilegious. Not my intent!
I really just want to provoke you to think about an important concept that is almost always misunderstood. But when it is understood properly, it can be life changing, at least it was for me.

I find many Bible studies take an approach to suffering that is not helpful to "walking in the Spirit". When the focus on suffering uses the disruption or discomfort of the circumstance as the framework for suffering, then the wrong meaning of suffering leads us to see the Christian life more in a "grin and bear it" reality. 

I have a past blog that clearly describes the many Greek words in Scripture that translates into the word "suffer". Its worth a read

http://profoncall.blogspot.com/2011/06/making-sense-of-suffering.html

Even worse, when believers are actually predisposed to their human nature and not Grace, suffering is putting strain on or denying faith, not using or relying on it. For instance, platitudes like this one, that feel really good to us, appeal to our human nature, setting us up for some "stinkin thinkin".

When we have a core assumption that life seeks equilibrium, that we reap what we sow, that what you give you get back, when we have a difficult circumstance in our life, we instinctively feel that we deserve it. That we are being paid back for our sin. Human nature cannot make sense of life without the lenses of reward/punishment, reciprocity, reaping and sowing. How does this Chinese Proverb square with this Kingdom principle, "Do not fear little flock for the Father has chosen gladly to give you His Kingdom"? Without us even knowing it, our human nature trumps Grace in how we make sense of suffering.

Let me explain it the way human psychology would say it (all truth is God's truth). 

When a person encounters an event, felt emotions result in the person.

If the felt emotion is negative, the individual must do something with the emotion. One option is to suppress or deny the emotion so that the behavioral response is not inappropriate. So, if the individual feels anger, he/she may "stuff" the anger so that he/she does not do something to lash out at another person (anger management) or the person may convince him/herself that they are not angry because anger is a sin. This response to anger does not produce joy, while it does present a "righteousness" to others. The person eventually feels stress or resentment or some other emotion that can be destructive to the person.

The more productive option is called "reappraisal". This is actually thinking about the situation in a different way as to not even feel the negative emotion. If we understand that the Biblical reference to "suffering" is not what we may have been led to believe, we see suffering is not about the negative feeling or pain or discomfort associated with the circumstance. As I explain in my blog, the word for "suffering" most used in Scripture means the "emotional content of an experience". It does not refer to whether the feeling is positive or negative.

"Partaking in the sufferings of Christ" literally means having the same emotion that Jesus had to circumstances. His emotions were perfectly aligned with God's view of his life. He was exalted by people on Palm Sunday. He was tempted by Satan in the wilderness. He didn't suppress or deny negative feelings. He was sad sometimes, even agonized when He knew he would be separated from His Father. He understood that "good" was not determined by how the circumstance met a self-serving need. All circumstances were "good" because they were "of God".

When I learned every circumstance is "good" because it exists for me to play out in faith what God has put in me within the context of His-Story, many negative felt emotions like resentment went away. They didn't have to be denied or suppressed.

Reappraisal of our circumstances changes our felt emotions regardless of the nature of the circumstance. We feel the joy of Christ when the circumstances create pain or discomfort. We feel the joy of Christ when we get a promotion or find out we are going to have a child. I can be content in all things. Why? 

BECAUSE reappraisal is repentance, a change in thinking ...       

Inhale/Exhale

There probably is no more common, instinctive behavior we have than breathing. We do not think about it, practice it or perfect it. We may be taught to breath more deeply as a n athlete, but the act of breathing is just what we do.

I heard breathing used as a metaphor today that really caught my attention. For several years I have been trying to find ways to explain the two meanings of the word "obligation." I wrote about it in my book "Stuck in Stinkin Thinkin" and I recently used the foot washing story in a recent blog on Servant Leadership.

However, it seems I still get blank stares and yawns from many people as if it just doesn't matter. Then why do i keep thinking it is fundamental to how we live? Breathing sure is !! Let's see what we can learn. Its worth still another try.

When we breath, we inhale, the air we take circulates from our lungs providing our body the oxygen it needs, returning to our lungs with air that is then exhaled. What our body exhales is directly related to what we inhale. We don't have to think about it or work at it, the air we exhale is what our body naturally produces from what we inhale.

We can use exhaling to understand the difference in the two words for obligation. We would see that in one instance, exhaling is a duty we have, an expectation of everyone who saw us inhale. We feel the pressure to work at properly exhaling whether we really want or like doing it, we may even feel a need to make the air we exhale something more or better than what we inhaled. The second meaning of obligation is that exhaling is an intricate part of breathing. We must exhale because we inhaled. We took in oxygen, our body knew exactly what to do with it, it was a natural and orderly process, not dependent on our ability or will. Finally, the health of the body and the quality of the air we exhaled was directly related to the nature of the air we inhaled.

In both types of obligation, we must exhale when we inhale. The difference is in the first meaning of obligation, we ought to because it is expected. In the second meaning of obligation, we ought to because the natural consequence of breathing demands that we let out as we take in. Which type of obligation do you think applies to inhale/exhale? I think its the second, duh!

As I mentioned in my recent blog, the second the type of obligation is also found in leadership. Followers predictably and instinctively exhale as they inhale from the leader. If they breath in corruption and greed, they produce corruption and greed. Breathing in selfless service produces a servant.

Inhale Social Exchange/ Exhale Duty

Inhale Grace - Exhale Praise!!

Now that's an obligation I can live for :-)      

 

Questions to ask your alarm clock?

The alarm clock takes a lot of abuse. It seems to be our defacto enemy. It is the butt of many jokes. It gets ignored when it is only doing what we asked it to do in the first place. I think the "esteem" (self worth) of the alarm clock is doomed by its very reason for being.

Think about asking your alarm clock this question 

Why are you here?


Its sole purpose is to wake you up when you prefer to sleep. You use the alarm clock to remind you that you must spend time and effort doing something other than what you naturally prefer to do. The alarm clock is by definition a proxy for or a sign of extrinsic motivation at the expense of intrinsic motivation.

OK, I agree, too academic. I'll say it this way, the alarm "going off" says to you that you must quit doing something you enjoy (sleep) in order to do something you do not enjoy (work or school or whatever). You must get up - You want to sleep.

Now, there have been days (surely more than one) where you set your alarm clock to get you up on time, but you were so excited about your upcoming day you woke up way before the alarm went off. The alarm clock really was not necessary. It was a security blanket or habit. The important point here is that your motivation was such that what you had before you to do that day was way more purposeful and enjoyable than sleeping. That is what intrinsic motivation means. You can't wait to do it. You don't want to waste anymore time until you are doing it.

So, sometime when you are not grumpy and angry at your alarm clock, ask "what was going on the days that I ignored you and didn't need you?". The answer is the secret to your calling in life. The things you do that you can't wait to do are not your calling, but they reflect the nature of activity that is consistent with the kinds of activity you would have if your career were highly intrinsic.   

This is not always obvious, but it is worth pondering ......

Its the greatest coaching tip I know to give anyone searching for answers about life's calling!!

Relative but not relevant

I read a great article on why millennials were leaving the mainstream church in America in droves. The bottom line was that in their attempt to appeal to the

relativism of our culture, the church became irrelevant. I just find that contrast so interesting - that by trying to be anything that someone wants you to be you become nothing to them.


In an unrelated, but related, post on Linkedin I took exception to the following by a well respected and successful Bible teacher in a US major city. It went like this

"We should be motivated by the fact that right now we are in the process of becoming what we will be in eternity. We should give it everything we have, because eternal gain will be worth anything we sacrificed in our brief earthly sojourn."

First you are probably saying, what's wrong with that Prof? How can you take exception to that post? Then you are thinking how does this relate to the first point that you made and I liked. So you are thinking by now that I am batting .500. One good point and one kinda squirrelly point.

Why did I take exception to this post and how is related to the onslaught of relativism? The post gave an absolute truth about the Christian life when it said "we should be motivated by what we will be in eternity." Then it made a point that is not an absolute truth of the Gospel. "because eternal gain will be worth anything we sacrificed ..."

In this post the rationale for our motivation was stated in terms of exchange, reward systems, reciprocity. This is carnal minded. Its just another exchange we can make with God. "Eternal gain" is relative to our sacrifice. The absolute truth of the Gospel is that He made the sacrifice, not us. Faith is our motivation to give our all, not exchange.

Here's my point. The flesh, carnal mind, human nature (whatever name we give it) constrains our motivation to one of exchange, not thankful response to unmerited favor. Exchange is relative. We find we need to give whatever we think will get us our reward and keep us from punishment. The Gospel becomes relative, and not relevant. The younger generations in other parts of the world are ahead of us (Australia, Europe). The US is now seeing the mass exodus. It is not because the Gospel is not relevant, because it is. It is because the stealth influence of human nature is presenting the Gospel as another exchange program. The emerging generation is deciding they can find other relative exchange alternatives. The problem is that in the flood of "theological speak" that does not abolish all remnants of the flesh, they are missing the absolute truth of the Gospel of Grace, which is highly relevant to the abundant and virtuous life, both now and forever.

Relative truth excites a few, absolute truth excites everyone!

I do not go here on this topic to judge (condemn) those sincere Christians who diligently walk their faith each day and share their love with others, but to judge (discern) that we all have this stealth influence of our flesh (exchange) that makes our message relative (not absolute) and thereby irrelevant.

All questions are not created equal

There exists a narrative on leadership that focuses on the questions leaders should ask. However, leadership inquiry is more about the follower than the leader. One primary quality of the follower that demands questions that “fit” them is personality.

Everyone seems to have their own idea of what personality is. There are plenty of myths surrounding what it is, where it comes from, and can it be changed?


 My understanding as both an organizational psychologist and a business executive is that personality is the mechanism built in to each person to behave in ways that best meet their needs. We have our personality when we are born and it stays with us for our entire life. We may modify our beliefs, values, and approaches to life, which can affect our behavior substantially, but there is evidence that the basic needs from which we structure our personality is stable across our life.

With that said, how does the personality of the follower affect what questions the leader should ask? Personality is an extensive field of study with many popular tools such as Myers-Brigg and DISC to support how leaders interact with followers. I want to focus on two lesser known, but very powerful contributors to how people structure their behavior to meet their needs.

The first is called locus of control. Locus of control is the tendency a person has to attribute outcomes either to their situation or to themselves. Of course, the intensity of the trait will affect the frequency and assertiveness of the leader’s inquiry, but the following explanation of external and internal locus of control provides directional guidance on effective use of inquiry with followers.

An external locus of control (ELOC) individual will see their environment as reasons why they can and cannot accomplish a goal. When something goes wrong, they will feel that they are victims of bad luck or destiny. ELOC individuals, who have a need for control, will become easily frustrated when events do not happen as they wish. This may result in ELOC individuals demanding more of others.   Questions for ELOC followers should cue them to what THEY specifically can do to move forward and not procrastinate. They need to be encouraged to ask about the situation in terms of a problem to be solved versus reasons progress is not being made. ELOC followers need inquiry that builds personal responsibility and confidence.

Internal locus of control (ILOC) individuals are those that see outcomes as a direct result of their own abilities and effort. ILOC followers will see failure as their fault, but will mainly see failure as only a temporary setback. The risk for ILOC followers is that they will not abandon a path when they should, or they may seize tighter control of the reins and start doing more things personally. They need to be asked questions that validate the approach and the outcome they are pursuing to make sure that they are not stubbornly trying to solve the wrong problem or one that is not worth more effort to solve. Questions that reduce the negative effects of overconfidence and personal control are helpful for ILOC followers.

One feature of personality is specifically related to how individuals are motivated. These are called approach and avoid motivational traits. Approach oriented people are concerned about missed opportunities or making an error of omission. Avoid oriented people are concerned about being blamed for doing something wrong or making errors of commission. These traits are mutually exclusive so Individuals. The person can be high in one and low in the other, or high in both, or low in both. The relationship of each trait to the other also effects how followers respond to leaders’ questions.

Followers with high approach are the ones that will want to achieve and not be satisfied with status quo. Low approach followers are usually the “go along to get along” followers. Questions for these individuals will generally need to focus on how they are feeling about how things are going and making them feel a part of the process rather than inquiry associated with greater achievement.
When followers’ approach trait is high and avoid is low they are more likely to take risks and initiate change. The leader will want to ask questions that help clarify the vision for change of the follower and make sure they are considering the risks. If approach is high and avoid is high (but not as high as approach) the follower will want to achieve big things, but will be quite cautious in their approach.

Questions for these followers should focus on making failure less of a concern since they are more likely to be focusing on the downside risks. Rarely, but interestingly, there are followers with both high approach and avoid, but avoid is equal to or higher than approach in intensity. These followers can be quite frustrated because they want to achieve at high levels but are afraid to make decisions. Questions that focus on the need to achieve versus the possibility of failing and inquiry that shows the leader’s approval for the follower to take action is very necessary.  

So, while teaching leaders that they should lead with questions is a good start, recognizing that leaders and different followers do not tend to the same questions in the same way is  ...

There is a Concierge ready and able to help @ www.lmxconcierge.com 

What can we learn from pet birds?

I was just having a casual chat with a friend recently when he began to tell me about his pet birds. Well, they are not exactly his in that his wife decided she wanted 2 pet birds, but she travels a lot and he is stuck caring for them.

As he described his experience with these birds, my ears perked up. Here's a little of what he said (paraphrasing). "Birds are the lowest from of pets, despised by many people but certainly considered of little value, kind of dispensable. They fall off their perch and cant get up by themselves.They make a mess and can't offer me anything."

He goes on to say, "but I found myself giving them more and more attention, wondering how they were doing and caring for them in intentional ways. One of the birds won't respond, but one does. One likes my affection, one ignores me. I think these birds were meant for me, not my wife,"

I smiled and said, listen to what you are saying. First, you chose to give the birds your attention and affection, right? "yes." They are the lowest form of pet and they have nothing to offer you, right? "right". One receives you and one does not. Is that what you said? "yes."

I was overwhelmed with the thought, then how is that different from God and you? and me? and YOU?

We discussed then how God visits us with His message for us in situations we find mundane and troublesome. My friend was seeing the birds as an imposition, mainly from his wife's initiatives. Yet, God revealed Himself to my friend in such an unexpected way. Its how we "gnosis" God, or "know Him" relationally. We can read about God, we can hear sermons about God, we can see pictures of God, hear testimonies of how God has moved in other people's lives OR we can experience what God is like as we unconditionally love OUR pet birds. We can see in our heart what it means to delight in some dysfunctional, messy being that has ZERO to offer us, except that it is OURS. We can see a glimpse of how God sees us.