Category: Judging

Posted on

Final Exam

Final Examinations have always been a part of my educational experience. Final Examinations have usually raised my level of anxiety. Usually. Here’s a fun fact: I’ve never been a good test taker, as I’ve often seen multiple choice as nothing more than multiple guess.

In college I had a professor who acknowledged the dilemma of testing students, wondering if tests were the best way to measure a student’s mastery of the subject. To combat the bad press on tests, he called them, “Learning Experiences.” Every week we were to have a “Minor Learning Experience” over assigned reading material. Then, three times throughout the semester, we were to have a “Major Learning Experience” over class material. And then, at the end of the semester, we were to have a “Final Learning Experience.” As much as I appreciated his attempt at rebranding, it still felt like it was nothing more than quizzes, tests, and final exams. So much for relieving my anxiety.

Looking back on those days, the professor was onto something about the nature of exams. The student won’t master the material unless he/she is held accountable for the material. Love em or hate em, testing students forced them to master the material.

Paul offers the Corinthians a shot at “mastering the material” in the form of a final exam. In 2 Corinthains 13:5-7 Paul drops the word “test” four times: “test yourselves” (v. 5), “unless you fail the test” (v. 5), “we have not failed the test” (v. 6), and “we have stood the test” (v. 7). More importantly, Paul leads off with the command to “examine yourselves.” With the end of this letter approaching comes a final exam for the Corinthians. The church will be expected to pass, and despite all their troubles, Paul is optimistic. He holds out hope that they will pass the test (v.6), and I might add, he believes they will pass it with flying colors.

Now Paul is not handing out papers with doctrinal questions jam-packed with fill-in the blank, true or false, multiple choice, and essays. Far from it. This test is all on them. For instance, when Paul tells them to “Examine themselves” and to “test themselves,” the emphasis is on “themselves,” not on “examine” or “test.” Paul is not hovering over them, hoping they fail; he’s not even grading the test. He will lead them, but he will not judge them. Actually, Paul is encouraging them to be introspective in their dealings with him, with each other, and with the gospel. Paul is not judging them but getting them to judge themselves. Using the gospel as a rubric for their lives and their church, he’s asking them to honestly evaluate where they stand. Trust holds this together as Paul hands out the test, to which they take the test, and then they themselves grade the test.

Let’s be honest for a moment. We’re not really good at being introspective, are we? We really don’t want a good look in the mirror because if we did, we’d probably not like what we find. I’d rather talk about someone else’s sin or shortcomings than my own. And if I did probe deep into my soul, I might have to confess and repent of the things we’ve done. And who wants to change?

A friend of mine told me about a report presented to the company where he is employed. A review board came in and performed a quality analysis of product and services rendered. The review board interviewed employees and surveyed customers, then presented the results to the company. While they scored high on their product, they scored embarrassingly low on customer service. The review board warned the company that no matter the quality of the product, if they did not improve their customer service, the company would tank.

As the representative of the review board presented their findings, the company got defensive. They pushed back, denying and questioning their findings. They made excuses. They discarded the advice offered them. My friend told me that the company was acting like deck hands rearranging chairs on the Titanic. He was getting out before it sank.

We’ve seen this before. People never realize how their comments, traits, and idiosyncrasy disrupt their interaction with people. Schools fail to provide a quality education, so people leave the district. Marriages struggle in the day to day, and without special attention, soon spiral out of control. Churches believe they are friendly and evangelistic, representing Jesus to the world, until they are not friendly, un-evangelistic, and whatever Jesus is represented it’s not the one Paul represents. Meanwhile, filters are placed at the front doors new-comers from entering, while the back doors are wide open for members to exit, leaving the rest to wonder they their church is not growing.

Ultimately, because we are blinded to our own slip-ups, shortcomings, and sins, we are not very effective at introspection, the very thing Paul is calling the Corinthians to do.

For just a moment, let’s imagine that Paul is handing out a final exam, and on it has at least three questions. Since these questions are rhetorical, they are intended for the Corinthians to contemplate, to wrestle with, and to probe deeper into their own conscience.

Question One: Jesus is in who (v. 5b)? The opening question explores both their faith and relationship in Jesus. No doubt the Corinthians will believe they are in the faith and that Jesus Christ lives in them. And they should believe that. Paul is not questioning their salvation or their eternal destiny. Nevertheless, Paul has given them cause to pause, as just a few verses before, he calls them out for a slew of sins still gripping their lives: quarrelling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder, impurity, sexual sin, and debauchery (12:20b-21), a carry-over from 1 Corinthians. Such indictment sounds like the church haven’t just struggled with these sins but have thrown caution to the wind. In abandoning Paul, who kept the guardrails of their faith intact, they rejected a gospel of humility, suffering, reconciliation, generosity, and self-discipline. They opted to follow leaders who manipulated them, shamed them, and, we might say, gaslighted them all while promoting a gospel of success. A definition of success based on the world’s standard and not one defined by the cross.

Once they answer the question about themselves, which they will confess that Christ lives in them, the real struggle is admitting that Christ lives in Paul (v. 6). The domino effect begins as they realize that the one they reject is one whom Christ resides. And herein lies the rub with us as we struggle to answer the question of “Jesus is in who?” It’s easy to say “Christ lives in me, but I don’t believe Christ lives in them.” Sounds a little arrogant, but the lure of drawing the circle of fellowship smaller and smaller eventually leads to a circle that includes only you and me. And I’m not too sure of you.

Question Two: What is truth (v. 8)? Pilot once asked that question of Jesus (Jn. 18:38), and centuries later we struggle to form or articulate an answer. For most of my life the greying of truth has permeated society. Where once we spoke with clarity and precision, much of life today is nuanced. Not all of that is bad. Sometimes the clarity was hateful, judgmental, and even racist. On the other hand, when people cannot agree on right and wrong, problems will arise. We will struggle within our churches, society, and in our courtrooms to determine what is true. What are the ground rules, and whose personal truth are we going to follow? Paul is not wanting to bend truth to his will or his personal narrative, but trusts that when the truth, or the gospel, is revealed, the Corinthians will find him in line with it.

Question Three is a two-part question: “What is the source of Paul’s authority” and “What does he have the authority to do” (v. 10)? Throughout this Corinthian letter, Paul has been defending his apostleship. Opening his letter, Paul declares his apostleship is by the will of God (1:1), and now he is forcing the issue with the Corinthians. Is the claim he’s making true? Was it true when he brought them the gospel, and if so, what happen for him to be stripped of his authority? It’s time for the Corinthians put up or shut up. If they recognize his authority, and Paul is hoping they do, what does he have the authority to do? Whatever punishment Paul has in mind for his next visit, he prefers not to use drastic measures. Paul believes his authority should be used to nurture and strengthen the church, not to divide, demoralize, or to demolish the church. He will discipline, but he will not destroy. He’d rather enjoy the people by edifying the church.

Final exams may be part of our educational system. Some may say they’re a necessary evil as students won’t learn the material until they are made accountable for the material. Paul is administering an exam, though the only thing “final” about it is that it’s at the end of this letter before his third visit. The real challenge is not if they pass or fail. The real challenge is whether or not we can be honestly introspective enough about our own thoughts, motives, and behavior to lead to meaningful change. 

Soli Deo Gloria!
(i.e., only God is glorified!)

Posted on

Countering the Cancel Culture

Someone said it was a good year for cancelling. They may be right in that the number of moments in the Cancel Culture war seemed to have escalated in 2020; it feels like everyone jumped on the bandwagon. No doubt the movement has been fueled by three unique factors merging into a perfect storm. First, the toxic behavior of social media where people feel free to post their unhinged thoughts without fear of backlash. Secondly, cultural norms have and are shifting faster than our comfort zones can process. And thirdly, a pandemic that has forever changed our world. Whether you believe the pandemic is a real threat or hyped up fake news, the result is the same: we are in a very different place coming out of pandemic than we were two years ago going into the pandemic.

Cancel Culture is a form of group shaming, usually issued to a public person or company for decisions or actions that are deemed offensive (yea, I Googled it). One might say that the shaming is an attempt to reform behavior through pressure, while others admit it’s simply a political power-grab. While the term, “cancel culture,” has only recently been coined, the idea has been around for many years and both sides of the spectrum has participated in its game.

The summer I graduated from college, a movie about the life of Christ was generating a lot of buzz. Long before social media, televangelists and local preachers were urging viewers and churches to boycott The Last Temptation of Christ. I was trying to complete course work to graduate and get married so I wasn’t tuned into the debate. Later in the summer a preacher I knew was given an opportunity for a private screening with other community leaders to view the movie for themselves. Yes, the movie was controversial and undermined the gospel account of Jesus. However, he added his perspective, while the movie wasn’t good, its bad publicity will draw people out to see it for curiosity’s sake. Had Christians not drummed up such noise, it would have gone under the radar and bombed in the theater.

About a year later the Exxon oil tanker, Valdez, struck the Prince William Sound Bligh Reef, spilling ten million gallons of crude oil. The spill was the worst on record, ever. While multiple factors were in play to cause to spill, the captain and Exxon Company were deemed guilty of negligence. Cile and I decided to forgo purchasing gas from Exxon to protest the spill. Our weekly tank of gas did nothing to curtail the some 400 billion dollar enterprise.

When Disney decided to offer health insurance to LBGTQ partners, as if they were recognizing a benefit only for married couples and families, the Southern Baptist Convention pushed to boycott the company. That was in 1997 and today, after buying the rights to Pixar, Marvel and Star Wars, the threatened boycott was like flies being swatted by an elephant.

Yes, these are my experiences, but I’ve found both sides of the ideological isle use “cancel culture” in their arsenal. When deployed the tactic doesn’t work and often backfires in the process. On one side, those cancelled are viewed with sympathy or curiosity which draws more attention to them or their cause, while on the other side their personal lives are ruined: the punishment of public shaming is far greater than the original offence that ignited the shaming.

While the catchphrase, “cancel culture,” is not in the Bible, the theme is a reoccurring motif. And it doesn’t always unfold like we think it should. Cain kills his brother, but God chooses not to cancel him (Gen. 4:11-12). In fact, he protects him from being canceled (Gen. 4:13-16). Saul sins and God cancels his dynasty, handing the kingdom over to David (1 Sam. 16:1). Then David sins – arguably sinning greater than Saul – and God forgives David (2 Sam. 12:13). Paul tells the Corinthian church to expel than man sleeping with his father’s wife (1 Cor. 5:9-13). But when Paul wants to cancel John Mark, Barnabas will have nothing to do with it (Act. 15:36-40). It seems the Bible sends some mixed messages regarding Christians living with a “cancel culture.”

From a wider lens, the biblical narrative not only draws us away from the “cancel culture,” but gives us the means to counter it. First, embrace the imagery of pilgrims (1 Pet. 1:1; 2:1) by avoiding political baggage. Not only do we not belong or feel at home in this world, but every cultural battle has a political bent to it. Instead of the Gospel bending culture, the political culture bends the gospel to something palatable for us to taste. We can feel more comfortable with our surroundings. Secondly, make room for righteous reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:16-21). Because, at its core, the “cancel culture” polarizes people, pitting us against them or you against me. Thus, the Gospel becomes ineffective at either bringing righteousness or reconciliation.

Someone said it’s a good year for cancelling. I’m pretty sure sarcasm was dripping from their pen while they wrote it. In truth it’s never a good year for cancelling. But it is a good year when pilgrims promote righteous reconciliation.

Soli Deo Gloria!
(i.e., only God is glorified!)

Posted on

Abandoning “Three Strike & Out,” while Embracing “One & Done”

Combining images from two different sports is a difficult. Baseball’s “three strikes and out” derives from the pitcher staring down the batter. The options are simple. After four balls (or hit by a pitch), the batter takes first base. If the batter puts the ball in play, he may safely reach base or be thrown out. Or, after three strikes, the batter is out and exits the batter’s box to return to the dugout. The batter is awarded two strikes and as many foul balls as needed. Once the third strike is called, his bat is over, at least for the moment.

On the other hand basketball’s “one and done” is a recent development. Since the NBA has age regulations, potential NBA players must spend at least one year developing their skills at the college level. Under the old rules players had to play three years in college before moving on to the pros, allowing college teams to build a cohesive dynasty. Today, numerous college teams recruit blue-chip players who only want to go pro. They play one year in college before declaring for the draft, thus for a college career, they’re “one and done.”

Finding a connection between “three strikes and out” with “one and done” will not be found in the sporting arena but in the biblical world. No doubt, it will be found in a most unlikely place.

As Moses was delivering the second of three speeches/sermons, as the Israelites were standing in the corridor of the Promised Land. The majority of the Israelites were not part of the Exodus and did not remember receiving the Law at Sinai. The three speeches of Deuteronomy were Moses’ farewell address. He not only reviewed the Law for them but also reinterpreted the Law for a new generation of Israelites embarking on conquering Canaan.

In the middle of the second speech (Dt. 18:14-22) Moses begins talking about prophets. He references a coming prophet who will be like him (Dt. 18:15a), with the call to “listen to him” echoing through the ages (18:15b), making the Christian reader think of Jesus’ transfiguration (Mt. 17:5; Mk. 9:7; Lk. 9:35).   

Then Moses pivots and gives a warning about the false prophets who will rise up in Israel. He knows they’re coming and he wants safeguards in place to protect his flock from being led astray. The simple distinction between a true prophet and a false prophet is the outcome of their prophecy. If the prophet predicts destruction and it fails to happen, he/she is a liar. If the prophet foresees success only to find devastation, he/she is a charlatan (Dt. 18:21-22). The severity of falsely predicting events is swift and sure. Instead of entertaining the prophet, Moses is intolerant of their fear-mongering. No “three strikes and out,” they’re given a “one and done” opportunity. One lie is the limit. The reaction is simple. In an attempt to keep them from leading Israel astray, put that false prophets to death (Dt. 18:20b).

Jesus assures us that false prophets are part of the system in a fallen world (see Mk. 13:5-8). They’ve been here before and they’ll be here again. They’re ongoing presence, though, does not mean we have to listen to them. We listen to Jesus. The key is not that they’re simply wrong in their prediction, but that they evoke God’s name in the process, claiming that God has revealed the future to them. So when we find their God-given prediction wrong, we cut the relationship strings. We silence their voices.

In my adult life these “prophets” have been plenty. In the summer of 1987 a group of people, invoking God’s name, claimed that Jesus was returning that year. He didn’t. They moved the goal posts to a future date only for that day to come and go like any other day. Yet the group seemingly lost no credibility. Or, on the threshold of the turn of the century, the rage was the Y2K scare. Granted, the question about computers being able to calculate the year “2000” was a good question to ask. However, some religious leaders exploited the fear, and representing God to the world, foresaw a world-wide financial crisis and meltdown. When life went on as usual, those religious leaders lost no credibility as people continued listening to them. Or, a televangelist blows the “Spirit of God” on the camera, like he’s blowing on you through the TV screen, claiming COVID is over and defeated only for it to claim over 300,000 more American lives, should raise serious credibility questions, but it doesn’t. Such behavior reeks of an opportunist seeking fame and fortune as people still tune in like they were sheep without a shepherd.

The list of blatant false prophets is far longer than a single scroll containing the words of Scripture, for as the Hebrews’ writer says, “I do not have the time to tell about . . . “ (Heb. 11:32b). We don’t have the time.

So when church leaders rise and begin invoking God’s name to predict what never unfolds, it’s time for the church to step up. In order to avoid being manipulated, let’s stop playing by the baseball rules and start embracing basketball rule. For it’s not our tolerance at stake, it’s God’s credibility.

Soli Deo Gloria!
(i.e., only God is glorified!)

Posted on

A Plank, A Rock & A Baby Ewe Lamb

The peril of a life lived as a critic means that one sees only the flaws in everyone else, but refuses to acknowledge the same flaws in themselves. The danger is the damage created by the individual who has no self-awareness for his/her own sin, but freely attacks or exposes other’s sin. Ironically, how many times has the critic been found committing the same sin as those he/she attacks? As the finger points, three more tend to point back at the accuser.

The climax to the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5-7) is a warning to the listeners where danger lurks when judgmental attitudes prevail. The imagery given is the person criticizing someone with a speck in his/her eye while ignoring the plank in their own eye. The humorous scene of someone claiming to help another with their “sawdust of a problem” does more damage to that person because he/her is constantly being smacked in the head by a 2×4.

When they dragged the woman before the crowds, they weren’t looking for justice. They were looking to trap and trick Jesus. They were creating a show with her and Jesus on center-stage; they might as well have been selling popcorn, peanuts and programs. But Jesus refused to play their games. His writing in the sand was likely a distraction to take the attention off the woman (if she was “caught in the very act of adultery,” where’s the guy?). With Jesus wedged between upholding the law while providing mercy for an exploited woman, he looked at her accusers in the eye. He proposed, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her” (Jn. 8:7). With the younger men ready to launch their rocks, the older ones dropped theirs to the ground and left, leading the young with them. If you’re going to be quick to accuse, then your own life needs to be guilt free.

In the wake of David’s sin with Bathsheba, he was graced by a visit from his prophet and friend, Nathan (David has a son named Nathan and it may say something about his fondness for the prophet). Nathan shared with the king an injustice. A wealthy man, with a flock of sheep, confiscated the only sheep owned by a penniless man. The ewe lamb was like a house pet to the poor man. The wealthy man had a friend traveling through and refused to sacrifice one his own flock or herd, so he stole from the poor man. Outraged, David visibly saw in this scene made him blind to his own sin. Nathan’s words were direct while cutting to the heart, “You’re the man!” (2 Sam. 12:7a).

Clearly, the critical and judgmental life is hardly encouraged in Scripture. Just as clear is how easily we endorse the critical and judgmental life as a means of defending truth, the gospel or Scripture. In other words, we need to fix their attitude, perspective and doctrine because ours is just fine if not perfect. Let the finger pointing begin as we do so in the name of Truth, the Gospel and Scripture. Let the three fingers pointing back at us be our indictment.

If there were a way to soften the critic within us and to stop the finger pointing, then at least two steps must be taken. First, take a good look in the mirror. Work on yourself before working on others. The bible is intended to reveal the heart of the one reading it (Jas.1:22-25). And while the image of the sword prevails in Hebrews 4:12, the link to the sword is its “sharpness” not its weaponry. So yes, the Word penetrates to your own soul and spirit. If God’s Word is going to convict and confront, it must convict and confront the person reading it, or holding it, before applying it to others and should never be weaponized.

Secondly, when the time comes to address something in a person’s life, and that time will come, humility and compassion must be the tip of the spear. Paul tells the Galatians that when someone is caught in a sin, restoration is a gentle process (Gal. 6:1). It’s not about hurting the person with your plank or by the stone in your hand, but through weakness, compassion and understanding. No wonder Paul clarifies that the restoration process is led by someone spiritual.

The danger of a life lived as a critic is that it ultimately pits me against them. I’m the good and they’re the bad. And when that happens, we’re not only blinded to God’s will but we widen the gulf between each other, a gulf that was bridged by a lamb’s sacrifice.

Soli Deo Gloria!
(i.e., only God is glorified!)