"I have a bias"

 A half a century ago Martin Luther King addressed a large crowd with these immortal words - "I have a dream." The full brunt of his words railed against racial bias in the country and indeed the world. Bias as bigotry began the trend in which the term bias took on a negative notion.

Over 20 centuries ago another King pronounced that he had a dream. Jesus taught only a few disciples of His bias to the Kingdom of Heaven. He described a realm where God's grace provides everything and His provision is freedom. There was no social media around for either King. While Jesus' idea of freedom was what MLK, a preacher of the gospel, was referencing, the world didn't really understand. Why? Because the human condition is biased to a nature unlike the Kingdom of light. Human nature is a bias to steal God's glory, not reflect it. Mankind looks to the world to give it its rights.

You see, bias is not restricted to racial bigotry. Bias is any endearing belief you hold that you never question but influences all of your souls thoughts, feelings and choices. Your bias is your heart's desire. Jesus was going at mankind's core bias. The first humans decided that they could be God and received a fundamental bias that identifies with a realm (the world's system) that is at enmity with God's Kingdom of Heaven.

So, Jesus explains the contrast of these two biases in His sermon to His disciples (often called the "Sermon on the Mount"). He, too, uses the idea of light and darkness. A bias to the Kingdom of Heaven brings God's light into the world by reflecting (glorifying) His Son as the moon reflects the sun. Human bias motivates man to pursue and produce "light" in their own power. But this "light", man calls virtue and morality, is a counterfeit to God's light. Man's own light is fake news, not good news. Human nature obsesses in the rightness of man's own version of justice and revels in elitism.

Understanding bias is to understand faith. For faith, too, is an endearing belief we hold that informs all thoughts, feelings, and choices. Everyone has faith. Everyone walks in faith. Everyone trusts something they cannot prove. That's not the question. The issue is which of the two fundamental biases, which flows from an identity in this world or an identity in Christ, represents the faith one holds dear?

Some of you may have assumed by the title and picture of MLK that I might be disparaging MLK and supporting bigotry. After all, I did grow up in Ala in the 50's and 60's. This might have been what was OBVIOUS to you in some small way before you read the blog. What is obvious to you in any situation points to your core bias.

Just something to ponder when you have time .....

pondering "Just Mercy"

 "Just Mercy" is a moving movie that has recently come out based on a period of history that makes us all stop and think and weep. Set in rural south Ala in the late 1980's and early 1990's, the story is an account of severe injustice propagated on the most vulnerable of our society, those who receive the the death penalty without guilt and fair representation. The movie based on a true story set in Monroeville, Ala highlights how little has changed in the 30 years after the South and indeed the nation was supposedly awaken by the impact of the  movie based on Harper Lee's book "To Kill a Mockingbird."

This was particularly salient to me since I saw the movie as a young boy in Montgomery and lived in Monroeville as a young family man in the early 1970's. You might say I lived in the epicenter of the 1960's Civil Rights movement, so the story had a deep emotional connection with me.

Those of you that know me also know I have spent a great deal of my work in recent years trying to understand the effect of the human obsession with justice compared to the transforming Gospel of Grace that underwrites the Kingdom of Heaven. Basically, justice is a reciprocity based on exchanging rewards and punishment to balance one's actions. Justice is what we deserve based on what we do. People desire fairness more than anything. The natural tendency and proclivity for justice, which is central to the human condition, actually constrains what should become natural to us in the provisions and privileges of grace as Kingdom dwellers. Jesus repeatedly describes His Kingdom as one where God provides generously not based on doing good, but to those who receive by faith what Jesus has done for them. The fallen nature of man to demand justice may be the biggest constraint on the soul in trusting grace.

So, what should the Christian's response to "Just Mercy" be? Good question. Here's where I have come down. Christian's should abhor injustices when punishment is unduly administered. This type of injustice in society is simply the outgrowth of power grab for personal gain. This type of injustice should break our heart, just as it does God's. But is hating injustice the same as being an advocate for justice? Here is where Christian's should differ from any non-believing "good person." If philosophy and psychology both find that core to the human condition is a desire for the virtue of justice, then what makes a justice centric Christian different, and why is the cross of Jesus necessary?

At the end of the movie, the main character, who has admiringly committed his life to unjust death penalties, says that justice, mercy and grace is what we should all be about. This is where he lost me. If justice is getting what we deserve, mercy is not getting what we deserve, and grace is getting what we don't deserve, how can we be about all 3 at the same time? Ever thought about that? Isn't just mercy an oxymoron?

Aren't mercy and grace just forms of injustice? Not the type the story moves us to tears over, but a different form of injustice that causes many in society great concern. Those, who believe a crime should be fairly punished, do not take mercy and grace well. They see it as weak, promiscuous, and fight it at every turn. This is the battle over the death penalty itself, and even issues like abortion. One person's mercy and grace is another's injustice.

If God's mercy and grace were similar forms of injustice, then He would not be just, and that cannot be. This is the unique role of the Cross in human history and the central theme of how we are all wrapped up in His story.

My wife use to ask me after a really good movie like Just Mercy, "what did you think of the movie?" Responses like this over time is the reason she does not ask me anymore. She rather speculates on what's going on inside my head and says, "Why can't you enjoy movies like everyone else? Just take them for what they are."

Good question and certainly worth me pondering ....

the great heist

A common and popular concept of faith is captured in this Snoopy cartoon. The appeal of this idea of faith resonates with both Christians and skeptics of Christianity. Why so, would you think? Maybe its the ambiguity of what we're "holding on tight" to, what "the going" is, and what is the notion of "windy"? That about gets it. In other words, each person is left to fill in their own idea of the words used in this cartoon to fit their biases.

The world that is skeptical of Christianity sees the tree as a positive self concept - "I am powerful, unstoppable, beautiful, and so on. "The going" is our circumstances and they are windy when they challenge our well being or what we want for ourselves.

This is a very appealing idea of faith to the human condition.

Yet when the Christian claims to "hold tight" to their faith in Jesus, the world responds like this:

       “Refusal to think leads to faith. Blind acceptance and obedience leads to 
       faith. Faith is belief without evidence or in spite of evidence to the  contrary. 
      It’s wishing – nothing more."

In other words, its OK for me, the skeptic, to trust something I believe even though I cannot defend it through science, but its not OK for you Christians. The skeptic says, "I am reasonable, but you, the Christian, are just being emotional." The world's reliance on faith is evidenced in how often they claim, "you must trust your heart." In a recent Hall Mark Christmas movie the star said, "our heart can tell us more than any spreadsheet ever could." And everyone goes, "yeah!" Business people take pride in "trusting their gut." It's quite common for everyone to operate on faith.

But let a Christian's heart defend its trust in God based on an assurance of unseen evidence (their heart), then the world laughs and says he/she is just wishing. The truth is that the world's view of faith is therapeutic and not transformational. Its like taking medicine to make us feel better when the medicine doesn't cure anything.

Christians must view their faith differently, as transformational. Christian faith does not view "the going" as circumstances and does not view "windy" as something that is working against them. "The going" is being entrenched in an adoring relationship with the King of the Universe and the wind is to help us fly our kite. What the world fails to see is that the power of faith is in the object of the faith, not in the extent in which we believe.

Has the church let the world get away with a great heist. Has the world stolen the notion of faith so Christians don't readily and purposefully defend the hope that is in them? Why do Christians feel they have to prove their faith with physical evidence? That's the antithesis of faith (unseen evidence) and not even what skeptics do to support their own faith. When will Christians stand their ground and call the skeptics hand? Why isn't it enough for a Christian to say, "I trust God because my heart is sold out to Jesus and that's more clear evidence than any spreadsheet could ever provide."

"The things we think are the most important things theologically are not the most important things to God. He wants your heart."  Jon Tyson, pastor Church of the City NYC

Learning to articulate the Christian faith as a heart not based on physical evidence with the same confidence the world defends their own faith is something certainly worth pondering ...... 

"we hold these truths to be self-evident"

If truths are "self-evident", why is there so much confusion in our society over rights, justice and happiness over 200 years after the Declaration of Independence was written? If truths are "self-evident", how can truth be absolute given every self operates with a different perspective or set of biases, so to speak? How can any truth be self evident to many people who trust something different? What does "self-evident" mean, and why do we base anything of importance on the notion it is "self-evident"?

The founders of our country created a very successful form of governance as a rejection of the power held by monarchies in Europe. The source of ideas for our country comes from Greek philosophies of Socrates and Aristotle. Universal laws of democracy and virtue order lives of society. BUT, the problem of knowing truth has never been solved by humans.


It is a mistake to assume that the idea of inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is God's gift (endowment) to the world. This is not what Jesus said. What kind of country would we be if the Declaration of Independence said, "we hold these truths to be Bible precepts"? This takes away the "self evident" idea. Maybe the preamble would read like this:

One thing would be that the focus of folks in the US would not be on our rights in this world. We would not look to our circumstances for our well being. Justice would not be the preeminent concern. We would not be transactional with each other thinking our "fair share" matters. A heart of grace would be our barometer and guide, not virtuous behavior.

God desires that we view our selves as aliens and sojourners in this world, here for a moment to reflect the light of Jesus bestowed on us to glorify His Father. Biblical precepts exhort us to a transformed life that walks by faith, unseen evidence God reveals to us, not a life in this world that is influenced by experiences of our physical senses.

The USA is a wonderful country. One that is founded to allow everyone to flourish in a finite world according to their efforts and abilities. This is great for the human condition (for a while), but it is not the eternal realm of the Heavenlies God has made available to us NOW as we find our identity in Jesus.

What does this mean for you?  That's where pondering comes in .....

"then sings my soul"

"How Great Thou Art" is one of the most sung songs in recent history. It makes people feel so good down deep inside. Even those reluctant to raise hands in praise will find their hands go up. Singing this song, especially the chorus, seems to make all our troubles go away. Yet, how often do we ponder the song? What do we think we are really saying when we sing?

This popular chorus starts with a astounding statement, "then sings my soul." Interesting claim. How does a soul, which is non-physical, produce a song that is experienced through the physical sense of sound? Generally, when I ask such pondering questions, most people go, "I don't know and don't really care." Fair enough. Your life won't stop in its tracks if you don't explore what you are really singing. BUT, your life could be enriched beyond a feel-good song if you found life's treasures in the song you sing.

The soul is essentially your "self." It is who you really are, the center of thought, emotion, and will. When your soul sings, it is your deepest expression. This may be why the Bible references the soul over 100 times in the New Testament. In this song that ministers to so many in such a deep way, what is the soul expressing? Obviously, the soul is absorbing the greatness of God. But, what about God does the soul consider to be "Great"?

I have found there are basically two possibilities. The soul is relishing in God's greatness based on the basic bias of the soul. The natural bias is for the soul to identify with the body and outcomes in this physical world. In this case the stress, anxiety, frustration and pain of the human condition trouble the soul. Finding hope in a day when I am free from the bondage of the body is a therapy that transforms me.  "How great Thou art" is the soul's recognition God is in control and one day after I die I will be in Heaven and have no more pain. That's one way to approach our anxiety.

Another possibility is a bias where the soul identifies with the Spirit. Here the soul relishes in a reality where it is no longer subject to physical senses for satisfaction, motivation and acceptance, even while still in the body. The freedom comes as the soul is transformed and becomes a "new creation," or as Jesus says, "born again" of the Spirit. While the body is still subject to futility of this world, the soul experiences not one of suffering but blessings found in a passionate relationship with Jesus. God is "Great" because He has willfully and generously invited me into His Kingdom. His provisions and privileges of Grace transcend the human condition as it relates to my soul.

This may be what Paul means when he calls upon God's people to walk according to the Spirit, not according to the flesh. Understanding this difference may make all the difference in how the soul is nourished when it sings, "How Great Thou Art." This is a complete change of bias, not just thinking. This is what is called walking not by sight but by faith.

A song worth pondering in addition to singing....

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......