Is this freedom?

Here's a recent face book post. Most people respond with a "thumbs up" like or maybe even a "wow." What about you?

Stop a minute and ponder what this really says. This quote really means that your "real self" is in some kind of bondage to how others see you.

This phenomenon is explained in human psychology as the need for legitimacy. It explains why people feel they must "wear a mask" of some kind to portray what they think others should see that makes them feel OK.

When I pressed the one who posted this quote with the question, "what keeps people from 'being yourself' all the time?" she replied,
"Nobody is. But, ultimately, that’s the goal. The ego gap is a source of rampant unhappiness." 

Wait, I am now confused. Here is a quote that feels warm and fuzzy to almost everyone, at least on the surface, yet it is what causes us to be unhappy. Do you see the irony here?

Young people are seemingly infatuated with the idea of "integrity." Yet, integrity occurs when our public self and our private self are integrated or one in the same. So again, without much thought a young person would LIKE this post because its warm and fuzzy but it represents the very source of unhappiness and lack of integrity.

ay yi yi

What's even more interesting, the very Gospel many young people find irrelevant in their life is the solution to this problem. The freedom of the Gospel is that no one who receives Jesus as their life has to seek legitimacy from those around them in any way. Freedom in Christ is the ONLY opportunity for a joyful and peaceful soul that never has to pretend to be something they are not to win approval of others.

"but we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God and not ourselves"

Now that is GOOD NEWS everyone should ponder  .....

What if your idea of righteousness is wrong?

I really hesitated to write this blog because it is typical for readers to think I am being judgmental. I am not. The Greek's have several ideas of judging. One is simply a examination according to some standard, another is to determine error and thirdly to condemn (punish) when one is found guilty. I try to practice the former. It is not my place to determine anyone's error. Yet, I am troubled by the way our human nature can rob us of the proper idea of righteousness because of any error in understanding. In doing so, there are several consequences. I'll discuss these at the end. But first, let me share with you what we know about fundamental human nature from the study of psychology. This is where the head fake begins.

One of the core influences on the human condition is the desire to be LEGITIMATE. Legitimacy is conformity to expectations of others so we feel OK. Each person chooses which constituency determines this for them. Regardless of the source of the acceptance, some standard is used as the basis for being OK. These norms are often referred to as morality. In early childhood your family sets the moral code. As you mature your peers establish "rules" as the factors that determine whether you are OK or not. For most people when the family is loving and supportive, the family remains a source of acceptance. However, your family's standards can be challenged when you identify more with friends, employers and even gangs who fulfill the role of determining if you are OK. Often, just being different can make you not OK.

Throughout history, religion provided divine guidelines that some people have associated with right behavior. Righteousness then becomes the proxy for legitimacy. You become aware that God has rules for what is acceptable. If you become a religious person, then your need for legitimacy is your conformity to religious morality. Many Christians believe this conformity is their righteousness. This view makes it difficult to differ Christians from non Christians, who also seek legitimacy often appearing to have the same virtue, just from some other source. The moral code may vary, but seeking legitimacy is common to everyone. People may differ in what set of standards establishes their legitimacy, but the need for legitimacy is fundamentally satisfied in the same way - CONFORMITY. Often Christians claim their standard is "a better way" by pushing forth the notion that their view is the only truth. This argument typically falls on death ears. People generally feel its up to them to decide which standard they wish to pursue. Thus, non Christians see no distinction in Christianity when it comes to virtuous living, or being OK.

The pursuit of legitimacy within a Christian context may look and feel like righteousness, but it is not. It is just a religious form of the pursuit of legitimacy, a pursuit that resides in everyone's human nature.  

So, what then is righteousness? Why the confusion? If we look at the current meaning of righteousness from Webster, we get, "acting in accord with divine or moral law." In this case we would be hard pressed to see righteousness as anything different than legitimacy in a religious setting. So, this may explain why so many Christians see righteousness as their form of religious legitimacy.

If we go back 200 years, we find that righteousness meant "conformity of heart to divine law." This is a little different as we see righteousness is about motive, not behavior. However, it is still a conformity we must execute to be made acceptable. It is still a form of the human need to seek legitimacy.  Let's go way back to when the word righteousness was used by Jesus. What did it mean then?

The classical Greek word is dikaiosynē. 

Here we see a subtle, but profound twist. Righteousness still relates to the notion of Divine acceptance, but the focus is shifted. The original use of the word is really about the judge. Righteousness is "judicial approval." It's about the judge's will, not our actions. If our righteousness is not about our actions, then it is not about our conformity, and it is not associated with our desire for legitimacy. My righteousness is God's action as the judge on my behalf. My righteousness is not anything about my pursuit of legitimacy. It's about the nature of the judge and His Sovereign desire and provision for my acceptance.

Wait, you say, that does not feel right. Surely my righteousness is based on my conformity. Surely my need for conformity is critical to my acceptance. It's only natural that this be!

That is right. It is natural. The need to solve our legitimacy problem by our actions is built-in to our human nature. 

BUT wait, isn't our human nature what got knocked off kilter at the fall?

Yup, and that's my point.

Is it possible that one's notion of righteousness is just a natural need for legitimacy wrapped in religious garb?

Maybe we need to see righteousness is about the judge, not the judged!


Oh, btw, the Greek word for justice is the same as for righteousness. Jesus only views justice through the role of the judge. For Christians to think Jesus' calls us to do justice, He is not referring to our natural instincts to be the judge of right and wrong. Rather, God calls us to act from the righteousness of Christ, which is the basis of His approval of us.

Back to the consequences of a natural view of righteousness vs. God's view.
1.   the world sees no real difference between their way to satisfy their need for legitimacy and those of a Christian.
2.   the Christian, who is saved but sees their righteousness through the lens of human nature, lives beneath the privileges they inherit in Christ Jesus.   

That is what I wish that you ponder .....  

What do they REALLY think?

Much of my work in b4Worldview centers around exploring what students say they think and what they actually think. These are called "explicit beliefs" and "implicit assumptions." Churches and other ministries want to train students to "think correctly," but they almost always are only getting to the students explicit beliefs. One thing b4Worldview does is engage the student in ways that "get to" their implicit assumptions. In doing so, we can capture both what they say they think and what they REALLY think.

Here is an example. Students are taught that Jesus wants us to love our enemies and pray for those who reject us. He also says it is easy to love those who love us but what about loving those who don’t. After all, God loved us while we were yet sinners. When asked what they believe about loving our enemies, they will generally answer that we should (explicit belief). Then, on facebook somebody posts, “so many people love you so don’t focus on the people who don’t.”  Christians “like” this post a lot and comment about how encouraging it is to them to read this (implicit assumption). So what do the students’ REALLY believe.

To be effective at such student engagements, we measure both their explicit beliefs and implicit assumptions. This can be confusing for leaders whose mission is training young Christians. Here is a brief description of how to measure each.

 When measuring explicit beliefs, provide a specific context that orients the respondent to “think correctly” before answering. Implicit assumptions occur when there is no context other than normal everyday life and the respondent must navigate ambiguity as to what is the best way to “think correctly.” The answer the respondent gives provides the context that the respondent is most likely to provide him/herself absent some authority oversight.

 When implicit assumptions, which naturally bias the respondent, are not aligned with their explicit beliefs, then the respondent will struggle to appropriate their explicit beliefs.  The respondent’s explicit beliefs will be limited in how effective they can influence the individual’s thoughts, feelings, or choices in normal everyday settings. Moreover, any implicit assumptions that are not consistent with an explicit belief will restrict the understanding the respondent has of that belief. Thus, while it appears the respondent is “thinking correctly” to those in authority, he/she is actually not doing so deep down in their soul.

Maybe, just maybe, the issue of misaligned explicit beliefs and implicit assumptions occur more often than in young Christians. It's possible this is pervasive in Christians of any age. 

Maybe, just maybe, this is what pastors are trying to get at when they encourage the congregation to be Christian 7 days a week, not just on Sunday.

That's one thing I ponder ....