We have now completed our first grouping of five:
Groups of People: non-followers of Jesus
· A non-follower is by definition someone who has not given his/her life to follow Jesus.
Group 1: The Antagonist: will negate any kind of possibility of God to fit his/her own framework of possibilities.
Group 2: The Spiritualist: believes in every kind of supernatural possibility – ghosts, energy, reincarnation, etc.
Group 3: The Disinterested: never really thought about God and spends a lot of time trying not to think about mortality, God, or the meaning of life.
Group 4: The Moralist: believes that as long as they are good and people don’t actively hurt one another then God is irrelevant (if He/She exists then they will be good enough, and if not, then the world is a good place).
Group 5: The Egoist: believes Religion is good for cultural heritage and for passing on moral lessons. Doesn’t actually believe it, but will defend it as great for the family and/or country.
And we’re getting ready to launch into our next grouping of five:
Groups of People: followers of Jesus
· A follower is by definition someone who has given hist/her life to follow Jesus and has put Him first. This assumes a measure of passion for Christ.
Group 1: The Experientialist: Lives looking for goose-bumps in every moment – in song, in prayer, in camps, and in relationships.
Group 2: The Spiritualist: Lives trying to conjure up a supernatural experience in the name of a supernatural God on terms that make them feel special.
Group 3: The Intellectualist: Believes that the method of demonstrating maturity and/or unique contribution is to demonstrate knowledge. Tends to use phrases like, “well, first you’ve got to understand” or “of course, you’ve read…”.
Group 4: The Passivist: As long as they attend church, listen to the message, and try to participate in some way, then they believe they are right with God. They tend to think less about the mission of God and more about participation in the programs of the church.
Group 5: The Mature: Demonstrate the courage by following His leadership in His timing with His attitude and His character. Gracious with the immature, ignores the spiritually arrogant, has healthy friendships with other followers for whom he/she prays and has many friendships with non-followers.
But before launching into groups of believers, I think it is necessary to make three incredibly important points:
1. Every follower was at one point in one of those groups (including me and you)
2. It is very possible to slide (or slither) from one group to the other. Those who begin Disinterested can wind up as Spiritualists.
3. Jesus was interested in every single group. But His approach changed to meet them where they were.
Of all the points I could possibly make, number 3 is by far the most profound and relevant. Jesus went out of His way to enter into the context – parties, conversations, meals, etc. – with those who weren’t followers. And He wasn’t manipulated or somehow made to feel less for being…well...Himself.
You can be an atheist and still be polite. You can be a Christian and be equally polite. Sadly, many pass off as just plain rudeness or being jerks in the name of their positions as either believers or non-believers.
For those authentic and welcoming non-believers, its incredible to think that not only did Jesus welcome the contact, but that He initiated the contact. Jesus made the first move (not the second, not the third).
If there is one way that every follower could follow Jesus right now, it would be to make the first move. Invite someone over for a meal. Go have a drink with someone (if you don’t like alcohol, have tea). Say “hi”. Be nice. As Matt Damon said in “We Bought A Zoo” have “20 seconds of insane courage” and take a leap of faith.
And once you’ve made that leap: don’t forget to be a genuine Christ-follower. Don’t be apologetic. You can be salt of the earth (ie. you don’t have to be on a high horse) and still be holy. You can attend a party without being the town drunk.
In short, learn to love others without conceding that the belief grouping of the other is truth. People can be sincere…and sincerely wrong. So connect on the sincerity without conceding to the wrongness.
I’m still humbled and amazed and grateful God Himself would even take so much as a second look in my direction. My life is changed as a result.
I didn’t write about groupings of non-followers because I felt the need to label.
I wrote about them because I can relate.
Groups of People: non-followers of Jesus
· A non-follower is by definition someone who has not given his/her life to follow Jesus.
Group 1: The Antagonist: will negate any kind of possibility of God to fit his/her own framework of possibilities.
Group 2: The Spiritualist: believes in every kind of supernatural possibility – ghosts, energy, reincarnation, etc.
Group 3: The Disinterested: never really thought about God and spends a lot of time trying not to think about mortality, God, or the meaning of life.
Group 4: The Moralist: believes that as long as they are good and people don’t actively hurt one another then God is irrelevant (if He/She exists then they will be good enough, and if not, then the world is a good place).
Group 5: The Egoist: believes Religion is good for cultural heritage and for passing on moral lessons. Doesn’t actually believe it, but will defend it as great for the family and/or country.
______________________________________________________________
We've made it to our last group as it relates to non-followers of Jesus. Egoists are 'posers'. Some are hidden within the folds of the church, while others are out in the open ("I'm not religious") but see absolutely nothing contradictory in their position in church (yes, even a position of leadership).
After all, in their own world view, everyone is interested in themselves first anyway. So in their mind's eye, it's natural that they dictate the terms of their own faith.
If you're a fan of Tim Allen and either Home Improvement or his new sitcom, "Last Man Standing" then you'll immediately get a feel for what I'm talking about. Basically, those sitcoms do a great job at showing good people who attend church, but were God doesn't really enter the picture otherwise. If you're an international reader and don't have this particular pop culture reference point, then I would encourage you to think about a politician near you.
Basically, these are champions of morality and cultural heritage as they pertain to faith. They can't say unequivocably that they don't believe in God, so they believe in God. But God's desires for their own lives - for their families, for their friends, for their futures - doesn't really play a role except to do the religious things expected:
- pray with your family before your meals (never away from that time)
- have a Judeo-Christian sense of right and wrong (Ten Commandments)
- try to live a good life
- make sure your kids are raised in the church so that they have "the kind of upbringing I had" (" and hey, I'm a great person!")
- go to church on Sunday morning and try to participate in some way in church activities
Many Egoists will even go to war for these efforts. And because they show up, smile, make an effort with their children (the children part is important in this), can sing a few worship choruses, and even tell someone else the "plan of salvation" - they consider themselves a Christian.
But while they will go to war for those principles, that doesn't mean they themselves actually believe that Jesus is the only Way, Truth, and Life. He's not exclusive. And for many, He's not actually God. Rather, Jesus is the best culturally moral option for living.
He doesn't really care if they curse. He doesn't really care what's in their hearts. And He especially doesn't care if they do what they want and ask for His forgiveness or blessing (depending on what they want) at the end of the day. They can be gruff, rude, or even mean to others at work...God will understand (Jesus isn't really that concerned with my own personal characteristics, right?).
Many will do what they want to do then "ask for forgiveness" later. They still dictate the decisions in their lives. The world still revolves around them.
After all, they've worked hard for this life, and sending their kids to church should give their kids a sense of right and wrong that they'll support at home. It's not belief. It's behavior.
I call this group 'Egoists' because they've become the ultimate arbiter of their beliefs. Life revolves around their opinions on morality. And as long as they can add Jesus to their smorgasborg moral lifestyle (like adding salt to a meal), then they can appear to be "salt and light". They want to feed the poor. They'd like to make the world a better place. They want to relate to their children.
But it doesn't actually affect or impact their heart.
The Problem
The problem here is simple: Jesus is exclusive. He Himself made claims to be God. He tells us that in comparing our love for Him with our love for even our parents there should be no contest - Jesus wants all or nothing. He tells children to let someone else bury mom and dad in order to follow Him.
Not exactly what society would consider kind social behavior.
The Bible is clear - Jesus isn't just concerned with the behavior per say, but with what's happening on the inside (example: Jesus says it's not enough just not to commit adultery, but that He raises the bar to include not lusting). Jesus is pre-eminently concerned with character driving behavior. Yes, behavior is important. But the "fruit of the Spirit" are the real indicators of a follower of Christ.
In the Old Testament, God tells the Israelite Egoists that they can keep their rituals and festivals. He wants their heart. The action does not precede the faith - the action is driven by faith. In the New Testament, the people Jesus reserves His harshest criticisms for are those with great religiousity (Pharisees and Sadduccees), but not real belief. Ask Nicodemus how wide that chasm really is to bridge. So Jesus goes out of His way to draw a distinction between morality and followship.
Followers will be moral. Moral people won't necessarily be followers.
One more observation: the notion that church will ground your children in faith is nonsense. Children are smart. They can tell when something is a game and something is transformative. They know because they've seen their parents in their underwear (for those not picking up - I'm using that sentence as a metaphor, too). Statistically, 80% of all kids raised in cool youth groups leave the faith by their junior year in college. They learned that morality is a show.
In my first year in Richmond, I helped out with the youth group at my local church. My own teen kids were telling me that many in the youth group were actively using drugs and had a reputation in their schools as being pretty immoral (they weren't telling me that in a bad way - that was my kids experience in Europe, so it was pretty consistent). One night, after leading in some songs where none except maybe 5 teens in a group of 30 was actually singing to God, I stopped and took a poll. "How many here would say they have given their whole life to Jesus?"
Every hand in the room went up. (Side comment: Of course they would! These teens have learned the lingo and the response. It's not belief. It's consent.)
In the past, there were no worries: your children would propetiate that myth when they had kids of their own (someone has to talk about God, life and "doing the right thing" - may as well be the pastor, right?). It was the American or European way. But culture is changing and people are tired of pretending.
This brave new world - where culture doesn't actually agree with the Christian faith - is scary for many. Frankly, they should be scared if only for the "Old Testament" ramifications of a culture with a maleable minimum moral standard (see "Fall of Rome" or "Fall of Greece" for details).
But I'm not scared.
My experience is that in a world of "grey" - of goodness and nice morality (like Europe), and where Christianity is just one archaic option - Jesus stands out like a sore thumb. Suddenly, there's a huge difference between realities (kind of like seeing a HD color TV in a world of black and white TV's - same shows, very different experience). In fact, I prefer it that way. It's easier to adjust to what's obvious than what's hidden.
Don't/Do
Entire churches based their budgets on Egoists. But if you have a conversation with one, here's my advice:
Don'ts
1) if you have a conversation about church, in your head you need to equate that with them talking about their local swim team. It's just another club and has nothing to do with what they believe. Don't think you're talking about the same thing.
2) don't mistake follow-ship with fervor. There are many soldiers right now would are gung-ho to defend Christianity but who are personally morally bereft. They'll still drink hard, curse hard, and make lewd comments out of uniform. Many people in history have died defending their belief that their culture is superior. Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, the British Empire, the Japanese (shintoism), the Chinese (confucianism)...etc. No one likes to think their way of life sucks. And many will defend that life in the name of their god(s).
3) don't talk about how you're flawed but seeking. The Egoist doesn't care. After all, they're flawed and seeking too.
DO...
1) have conversations about human issues - loneliness, insecurity, confusion, etc. - that are universal to everyone everywhere. Even the greatest king knows what its like to be lonely but not alone.
2) draw a distinction between follow-ship and faith. Biblically, these are related. But the term "faith" has been hijacked by the Egoist for a cheap imitation. Faith for them means intellectual acquiescence and a longing to help other people. Biblical faith is actually much different - it means risk and selflessness. Follow-ship conveys this better.
3) emphasize "all or nothing". This really is the place of confusion because it goes against every tenet of the Egoists belief structure. In the Bible, God never asks for part of us. He asks that every dream, decision, choice, and direction come under His leadership. There is no middle ground.
Groups of People: non-followers of Jesus
· A non-follower is by definition someone who has not given his/her life to follow Jesus.
Group 1: The Antagonist: will negate any kind of possibility of God to fit his/her own framework of possibilities.
Group 2: The Spiritualist: believes in every kind of supernatural possibility – ghosts, energy, reincarnation, etc.
Group 3: The Disinterested: never really thought about God and spends a lot of time trying not to think about mortality, God, or the meaning of life.
Group 4: The Moralist: believes that as long as they are good and people don’t actively hurt one another then God is irrelevant (if He/She exists then they will be good enough, and if not, then the world is a good place).
"But I'm a good person."
If ever one phrase captured the core belief of the Moralist, it is the short and sweet thought that morality is largely a game of scales. Those scales are conditioned:
a. Upon what society says is right (actions)
b. Upon what they themselves believe to be right (intentions)
c. Upon how they hurt others (relations)
d. Upon the supreme mirage of safety (assumptions)
Let's tackle these one by one:
a. The Moralist determines the status of their inherent goodness as it relates to how that goodness is perceived in society. If society as a whole believes, for example, that loving your neighbor is a good thing, then they will measure their own morality based on how they stack up to that code. God is largely irrelevant. The moralist bases their morality on the cultural norms and expectations of the day. By way of example: the moralist doesn't need to raise their children based on universal, absolute principles because those depend largely on the relative morality of society. So they just need to act slightly better than their neighbor in order to have a sense of existential goodness.
The problem here is rather simple, and Ravi Zacharias puts it most succinctly: in some societies they love their neighbors, in others they eat them. In the grand scheme of history, then, one can be immoral but moral to their own time and date. Racism is another example. Is it universally wrong to hate someone based on the color of their skin or only in modern society? And upon which standard will their eternity be based?
b. The Moralist ultimately asks us not to judge because they determine their goodness by what they intend to do right. This is generally coupled wth right actions, though not always so. For example, it's wrong (action) to distribute cocaine. But more than that, the Moralist believes it is wrong to sell those drugs to children. Their motive is to protect kids and because they know that motivation within themselves, they feel a keen sense of moral goodness.
The problem here is that our motives tend to shift quite often. We also have this incredible capacity to justify our motives to do anything. The woman who becomes a prostitute will justify that prostitution because her intentions were good. The person who takes someone else's baby does so in the belief the baby will be better off with them. People will destroy entire families because their motives are "good" - "but I'm meant to be happy and I want my kids to grow up with a happy example". Destruction gets justified. For another example, consider the South in the Civil War. Incredible destruction was wrought based on the good motives of: states rights, individual rights of having slaves, economic rights to have slaves to advance tobacco farming, the rights of society to have a standard of living that those poor black folks just can't measure up to, etc. So they went to war with "good" motives. The problem was that despite their motives, they were wrong. For a modern example: an Al-Quada bomber may have good motives for destroying the World Trade Center (terrorists tend to be idealists).
Put another way: sincerity is not a measure of rightness. We've all been sincerely wrong.
c. The Moralist believes that as long as they aren't hurting others then they are "good". God is, after all, interested in how we treat one another. And as we've examined with other groups, one can have a great deal of respect, honesty, integrity, and positivity without God. So the Moralist decides that as long as they have Boy Scout characteristics, that will then translate into a moral basis for a safe eternity. They are hedging their bets that if there is a God, then He/She is probably grading on a curve. The good just has to outweight the bad, and the first place to start is how much of a nuisance we are to other people.
The problem here is that even a supremely selfish act (like suicide) actually impacts other people. We like to believe that what we do in the bedroom, the boardroom or the backroom doesn't impact anyone but ourselves. But this is nonsense. The addicted father doesn't just hurt himself, but his children. The smoker doesn't just hurt themselves, but others. The selfish mother doesn't just do things for herself, her selfishness impacts her children. The second problem here is that even distance - isolating oneself - can be hurtful to others. I think Filter's song, "Take My Picture" expresses it best: can everyone agree that no one should be left alone? Is it more hurtful to be abused or ignored altogether? Psychologists will tell you that people will seek out bad behavior because even bad attention is better than no attention at all.
d. The Moralist believes that deep, deep down everyone is good and wants to do the right thing. If you travel - even to dangerous countries - you'll likely be okay because people are not their governments. Everyone wants wealth, peace, and happiness. Right?
Of all these points, this is the most absurd becuase it's based on playing the odds. Heck, in America during the celebration of a sports championship (that's a lot of happiness) there is a tremendous danger of that celebration turning destructive. Many happy occasions have been turned into tragedies. Just ask a soccer fan.
The follower of Christ takes a different position:
1. My actions are true to God's principles, which are absolute. Cannibalism and racism alike aren't justifiable at any point in history. Though I'm shaped by my culture, my actions can transcend them.
2. My intentions are true to the Holy Spirit's transforming work in my life. It is the Spirit that manages to make me more loving, joyful, peaceful, patient, kind, good, faithful, gentle, and disciplined. This might be a process, but I am not destined to be who I was. My past actions are not a guarantee of my future.
3. Love is selfless. Love was shown on the Cross - wrapped in the nature of a servant. He is my example for how to relate to others (man, woman, or child). God does not grade on a curve, which is why Christ's perfection and sacrifice are the only way, truth and life.
4. The world is fallen. It is hardly safe. I'm to be wise and innocent simultaneously...and safety is not my primary consideration for moving in this world. Courage is. So the way in which I move and relate is based on the notion that none can touch me unless God allows it. I have confidence without the delusion of safety.
Groups of People: non-followers of Jesus
· A non-follower is by definition someone who has not given his/her life to follow Jesus.
Group 1: The Antagonist: will negate any kind of possibility of God to fit his/her own framework of possibilities.
Group 2: The Spiritualist: believes in every kind of supernatural possibility – ghosts, energy, reincarnation, etc.
Group 3: The Disinterested: never really thought about God and spends a lot of time trying not to think about mortality, God, or the meaning of life.
The Antagonist thinks about meaning and has come to the conclusion that there is none, the Spiritualist discovers meaning from virtually anything, and the Disinterested simply find ways to avoid the conversation.
When I was younger, I would have sworn that this category simply didn't exist. And truthfully, even The Disinterested will have a tendency to slip into whichever cultural category gets them by (and by cultural, I mean sociological - either the religion in which they were raised or the group of friends with whom they identify). They are masters at dissapearing into whichever moral worldview exists (which is probably why I didn't think this category could possibly exist).
But after years of conversations, I've discovered something rather disturbing: this group doesn't just exist, it's thriving. Truthfully, those in this category simply don't care about God or meaning or whatever. It's not that it doesn't knaw at them (it does and eventually they'll slip into a different group) - it's just that they allow the whisper of God to go in one ear and out the other.
They are incredibly skilled at avoidance.
Their friends probably don't talk about God or meaning or anything like that - and if they did, things would get awkward fast. But the person in this group would in all likihood still shrug their shoulders.
But don't assume they are dumb. The greatest mistake others make with this group is that their apathy equates to a lack of intellectual depth. It's not that they don't have the capacity to think deeply about it, as much as it is that they've learned to emotionally detach themselves from anything that might make them internally uncomfortable.
The Housewives of New Jersey becomes a preferrable drama to the inner turmoil of the soul.
I find this same group on average approaches family dysfunctions the same way. They don't critique or praise - they simply shrug their shoulders, keep their collective heads down, laugh it off and try to get by. They're like wallpaper - in the room, quiet, out of the way, and just interesting enough to be noticed.
Your Response
The Bible says, "Search me and know me". But what to do when someone doesn't care enough to search?
I think there are a couple of good approaches:
1. Point out that existence has a shelf limit. I don't just mean this physically, but also existentially. As humans, we can only "exist" for so long before the vapid and routine nature of that eats at us. Best quote on this comes from Anchorman's Ron Burgundy. In one of the opening scenes of that movie, they are at a party - one they've held routinely for ten years and Ron says something like, "We've been doing this for 10 years and in no way has this gotten boring." And then he nearly cries as he takes a drink. It's that cry that you should be listening for.
2. Ask questions that don't revolve around them, but around others. Since they're already disassociating from themselves, it's too "close" to ask them what they themselves think about God or meaning. The truth is that they don't know and don't want to talk about it. Instead, ask them about their friends or family, the choices they are making, and draw a line to God. Chances are good that by keeping things "over there" you can have meaningful conversations. Trust me. They'll think about themselves as a result. We all have that moment where we look at someone else and think, "is that me, too?"
Have patience with this group. Everyone looks at their souls at some point. EVERYONE. It's really just a question of timing, who is in the room, and where they will turn when that point is reached. Build enough credibility and authenticity to be that person. Warning, though: if you're not a follower, then you won't know enough "life abundantly" (John 10:10) and experientially to be able to help practically.
Groups of People: non-followers of Jesus
· A non-follower is by definition someone who has not given his/her life to follow Jesus.
Group 2: The Spiritualist: believes in every kind of supernatural possibility – ghosts, energy, reincarnation, etc.
When I first met my wife, Melissa, she was a spiritualist. It wasn’t that she didn’t believe in a god (little “g”), but more that she thought he or she was one part of a whole host of spiritual or supernatural experiences. Ask some people if they believe in God and they will say “no”, but ask them if they believe in ghosts they will say “yes”. In fact, there’s a whole Discovery channel show dedicated to celebrities who believe in ghosts. Melissa had cobbled together a form of believe from a variety of vague thoughts…careful not to think to thoroughly about any one of them. She had a crystal not because she thought rocks were inherently powerful, but because maybe there was something to some forms of rocks having more energy than others. She believed in reincarnation not because she was a Hindu, but because she wasn’t sure if she was herself or herself come back into time again and again.
And Jesus was just kind of thrown into the mix. Her grandmother was a Pentacostal and Jesus became a childhood addition to a mysterious spiritualistic experience.
In truth, there are a lot more spiritualists who give themselves the title of “Christ-ian” than we care to admit. In fact, there are many self-proclaimed agnostics who probably fit this group more than they themselves would care to admit. I was stunned years ago to read a Galileo poll (Galileo is a Discovery Channel/National Geographic type of organization in Germany) who discovered that European scientists who were either atheists or agnostics wake up each morning to read their horoscope…and believe horoscope predictions.
Smart people choose to believe in Thetans (Scientology).
The spiritualist cobbles together a form of spirituality to keep God at a distance. They can’t ignore the hole in their soul and so must fill it with something…but they don’t want to pay too close attention because it’s too close. So beliefs are formed and built and discussed in café’s or late nights parties when either the supernatural or gods or God is brought up.
No one wants to look like they don’t really pay attention to that side of things.
One final thought about Spiritualists. Most spiritualists are like atheists. They’re not going to argue passionately against a God. Rather, they’ll take a postmodern approach that no one person can actually know the truth, so all opinions are equally true.
Melissa became a Christ-follower in one conversation. But that conversation was lynchpin conversation with me – someone she loved and of whom she thought highly. It would be some months later until we were wed (at the time of that conversation (very early in our relationship) I wasn’t sure if she was the one for me). I should also mention that she went home and gave her life to Christ by herself and on her own after our conversation (and then waited two weeks to tell me). It was important (and still is) that she made that decision not for the purpose of loving a man, but that her life belong to God.
YOUR RESPONSE
I love meeting spiritualists, but the conversations can be frustrating. It used to be that you could dive deeper and talk about each thread rationally:
Some who wear crystal rocks have good luck while others get run over by buses. (crystal energy)
Someone born in June has as much of a chance at life, love and destiny as someone born in September. (horoscopes)
If we’re all reincarnated, then no one is really themselves and unique. There’s just a specific number of souls going round the wash. And there are no perfect people, which implies that if the purpose of reincarnation is perfection, then there’s a few perfect cockroaches running around…and if they’re perfect then every cockroach has a conscience and awareness of perfection. Either that, or the more mindless we become the more perfect we are (reincarnation)
If I’m to empty myself and be nothing, then why is there a longing to be something – uniquely creative and unique to history? (nirvana)
If I’ve cobbled together my own belief system, then I’ve also become the arbiter of Truth. And isn’t that what got me into trouble in the first place? (religion)
And one could go on and on with a rational approach.
Certainly, that’s one option (that’s actually the conversation that Melissa and I had as we discussed our beliefs – why she believed in what she did and why I believed in what I did). I think it’s a valid response, which is why I bring it up here.
But
…rationality doesn’t always mesh with this longing we have that we can’t always fully explain. In a world where truth depends on perspective and experience (that’s your truth and not the truth, says the postmodern), I find that a different response is sometimes needed. So respond by lending validity to their experience (not to the belief, mind you, but to the experience). Jesus does this often in the New Testament.
All of us know what it is to sense there is something bigger out there. All of us have these experiences we can’t fully explain (kismet? Coincidence? Cosmic string theory?). It’s perfectly acceptable to first validate a basic, human experience – loneliness, searching, anger, hope, love, faith, or even family culture. But then draw a line between that experience and God. The Good News is that in a world full of spiritualistic options, Jesus still stands out like a sore thumb. That makes sense given that Jesus is the only spiritual option that is personal, alive and unrelenting.
For example: someone may have a crystal rock, but that is because their desire is to find a source of energy that is reliable. Validate that desire. All of us seek something outside of ourselves upon which we can rely, because let’s face it: we let ourselves down pretty regularly. You and I are incredibly bad barometers of self-inspiration. (If we could all self-inspire then none of us would need inspiration, energy, or extra help). Then draw a line – help the other person see how you’ve wrestled with the same issue and found an answer in Jesus. Don’t try to convince them (you’ll come across as if you’re trying to convince yourself). Instead, lay the truth out there – either the rock is inspired or Jesus is. Jesus didn’t give us the option of both (Jesus’ words, not mine).
People are fickle. The city of Jerusalem went from “hail, hail the conquering hero” to “crucify Him” in four days. That’s not just true in the New Testament, but also in the old – it took the nation of Israel 3 days to get over the Red Sea parting before they started to complain again. But ultimately, Jesus is the “stone that makes men stumble, a rock that makes men fall”. We either follow or we don’t. We submit or we don’t. So any conversation with any person will ultimately boil down to that choice.
The response you choose isn’t a guarantee that they will choose Jesus…but the response you choose may be either another roadblock to that belief (Gandhi’s statement: I would have been a Christian if not for the Christians) or an aid to it (Andrews response: Come and meet the one we’ve been looking for). Neither response is an excuse for the person who chooses not to follow (Gandhi can’t stand before God use cultural Christians as an excuse and the cultural Christian can’t stand before Him and say that because they received a good introduction, they are therefore a follower). Both fall flat before an Almighty God.
So to summarize: in order to help and not hurt the spiritualist’s search: 1) use rational arguments to help them really explore that which they’ve cobbled together or (2) use experiential validation on the motives of their cobbling to draw an experiential and then rational line to God.
In the introduction, I outlined several segmented groups and divided them into two broad categories. Then I posted a video outlining two principles in general strategy: (1) strategy is not inaccessibility and (2) unity is not uniformity.
It's important to remember that the God of the Bible is a God who takes initiative (and His followers who reflect Him also take initiative). God created humanity, but humanity has since categorized itself along ethnic, socio-economic, and rate of change. What is important is that God reaches each with the same message, but with methods that are unique to those groups. Jesus didn't talk to a centurion the same way He spoke to a Pharisee. Paul had a different approach in Athens than in Corinth.
So in this sense, then, it is perfectly acceptable to recognize where different groups are and utilize different methodologies. In business terms, this isn't about advertising, but true marketing (ie. connecting with the customer in a way that is meaningful for the customer). I'll admit I'm a little uncomfortable with the business terms as they apply to a transcendent God, but truth is truth regardless of context. God longs to connect with people - but never at the price of warping His truth - and that, I think is the line that often gets crossed in Christiandom. In trying to connect with others, we try to make the Gospel message easier to swallow or harder to understand. But God allows room for neither.
Groups of People: non-followers of Jesus
· A non-follower is by definition someone who has not given his/her life to follow Jesus.
Group 1: The Antagonist: will negate any kind of possibility of God to fit his/her own framework of possibilities.
C.S. Lewis describes a group in his children's book, The Last Battle, that has stayed with me through the years. He describes a group feasting on the greatest gourmet meal of their lives. But they complain throughout the meal. They eat cheesecake and talk about the dirt they are eating.
The Antagonist will warp anything to accomodate his/her own perspective. A great example of that is the view on belief as it relates to Alcoholics Anonymous. Researchers have dug into AA and discovered that there is a core group for whom the 12 steps didn't work until one thing clicked - the belief in God. When they interviewed these folks, all of them stated that they had found God (that He was alive and real and changing their lives) and that is how they retained their sobriety with the 12 steps. In other words, 12 steps alone didn't do it. The researchers found that their belief in God did. Then the researchers said something interesting. They stated that it clearly couldn't be God because people can go to church and be pious but still be alcoholics. So these men and women were cured by their belief in belief.
Now think about this with me: it never occured to the researchers that one can go to church and be pious and not actually know God. The thought that there might actually be a God is so out of their framework that they changed their findings to make it the "belief in belief". As if those alcoholics haven't tried believing in believing - hoping against hope - or making attempt after attempt to get sober on their own. And clearly, they wouldn't know the difference between their belief in belief and a transformative God. They must be lying or delusional or just plain ignorant...right?
Bill Maher has often repeated his public disdain of religion - and of Christianity in particular. He's challenged God publicly on air, "If You're real, then do this." Maybe he thinks God is a performing monkey. But the truth of it goes deeper than that. God could do a legitimate miracle in Mr. Maher's life in a completely inexplicable way, and I would bet that within 72 hours Mr. Maher would find a way to dismiss it completely.
It's not that God isn't real. It's that it's not acceptable for The Antagonist to believe in His reality.
YOUR RESPONSE
The best response to The Antagonist is to confuse them or avoid the issues they bring up. Some belief that if they can out-argue or out-prove their case, then The Antagonist will come round. They are wrong. You can prove anything you want and they still won't believe. However, to side-step and confuse them by getting to the core of things will cause a wedge of doubt to occur that could potentially be used in the future. For example, the issue is not "dinosaurs" in the creation versus evolution debate. The true issue is - is there a God who creates and who genuinely cares? So address that issue rather than speculate on what you do or do not know.
We tend to forget that science exists largely because Christians were curious. Many of the greatest scientists in history were genuine followers of Jesus. It's only in the last 120 years that science and faith began working against, rather than for each other. Religion and comfort have always been at war with change of any kind - scientific or not. We tend to forget that Galileo andLuther were both hunted.
But this isn't the group to hold scientific debate with. Even if you debate - and win - you'll be frustrated at the ultimate outcome.
See previous post that kicks off this series for reference.
Over the course of the next several posts, I'll be unpacking descriptions for different groups of people. Then, we'll look at 3 simple steps for cutting across the cacaphony of different voices to connect meaningfully.
Warning: these blogs have the same bent as my other posts - with an eye toward the spiritual. HOWEVER, one of the things that makes this series unique is the cross-over application in the world of sales and/or marketing. Granted, there are some limitations, but the similarities are too numerous to ignore. It's impossible, for example, to do any kind of segmentation without some recognition that marketing/advertising has put segmentation on steroids over the course of the last 60 years. But the reason they do it is simple: to a large extent, it works.
So if you're playing the home game version (smile), and you're not particularly interested in the spiritual element, but highly interested in the strategic element, you'll find a practical tool here. In fact, here's a shortcut: spend some time writing down your customer segments and your business segments, identifying points of disparity. Then choose your best starting point and be prepared to explain why. Hint: Recognize grouping, then focus on mentality.
Crossing back to the spiritual side of life, there will be some who believe that Jesus did not segment (of course, God strategically still chose an obscure nation - segmented within the world - through whom He would offer redemption). My commitment to you is that when we discuss how to cut across all categories, we will look at why Jesus did not segment, but connected strategically. So that is the end goal: discovering how to speak to people within all segments meaningfully. (And another warning is probably necessary: in doing so, we will invariably make strategic choices on how to connect).
Here's an overview of our different groups of people:
Groups of People: non-followers of Jesus
· A non-follower is by definition someone who has not given his/her life to follow Jesus.
Group 1: The Antagonist: will negate any kind of possibility of God to fit his/her own framework of possibilities.
Group 2: The Spiritualist: believes in every kind of supernatural possibility – ghosts, energy, reincarnation, etc.
Group 3: The Disinterested: never really thought about God and spends a lot of time trying not to think about mortality, God, or the meaning of life.
Group 4: The Moralist: believes that as long as they are good and people don’t actively hurt one another then God is irrelevant (if He/She exists then they will be good enough, and if not, then the world is a good place).
Group 5: The Egoist: believes Religion is good for cultural heritage and for passing on moral lessons. Doesn’t actually believe it, but will defend it as great for the family and/or country.
Groups of People: followers of Jesus
· A follower is by definition someone who has given hist/her life to follow Jesus and has put Him first. This assumes a measure of passion for Christ.
Group 1: The Experientialist: Lives looking for goose-bumps in every moment – in song, in prayer, in camps, and in relationships.
Group 2: The Spiritualist: Lives trying to conjure up a supernatural experience in the name of a supernatural God on terms that make them feel special.
Group 3: The Intellectualist: Believes that the method of demonstrating maturity and/or unique contribution is to demonstrate knowledge. Tends to use phrases like, “well, first you’ve got to understand” or “of course, you’ve read…”.
Group 4: The Passivist: As long as they attend church, listen to the message, and try to participate in some way, then they believe they are right with God. They tend to think less about the mission of God and more about participation in the programs of the church.
Group 5: The Mature: Demonstrate the courage by following His leadership in His timing with His attitude and His character. Gracious with the immature, ignores the spiritually arrogant, has healthy friendships with other followers for whom he/she prays and has many friendships with non-followers.
I sat in my chair in our livingroom going through a folder with our family history (on my mother's side) in it. My suburban hands don't show it, but I actually come from rather hearty stock. My grandfather was a soldier and a blacksmith. My grandmother worked at everything from farming to factory sewing.
I looked at faces past and reminisced a little. It's strange, but whether I'm going through photo albums of extended family history, or just going through our own immediate family history, I'm often gripped by a strange sense of melancholy. This isn't because of time wasted. Believe it or not, I actually appreciated and savored every moment - of my children's lives, of being alive, even of the music and fashion of the day. In fact, at times my memories have soundtracks and smells associated with them because I remembered to cherish those moments. It occurs to me that I visit the past rightly - to remember, to learn, to appreciate how fleeting time actually is. But many actually live with their heads straining for the past while their feet try to move through the present.
If I get melancholy, some get outright delusional. Their head and feet are at odds with each other.
The past can become the Lorelei: a siren's voice that dashes you on the rocks of the life you long to lead. You start to thwart your own self.
The past is a tricky thing, particularly when it comes to past mistakes. I made a mistake when I was young by having pre-marital sex. I wound up marrying the girl I loved and got pregnant and 20 years later am deeper in love with her than ever before. Each day since has been a determined effort to move forward with grace and nobility, in a valiant effort not to be defined by the past, but by the present. How we react and respond to the past often determines our future.
It doesn't really matter what the mistake is - greed, an act of selfishness, an act of idiocy. It only takes one mistake...and the problem here is that no one is perfect. If Einstein put his shirt on backwards, it doesn't matter how many Nobel prizes he wins. His friends will always remind him that he put on his shirt backwards. I'm sure they're just keeping him grounded.
At least, I hope that's their motivation. (This assumes that Einstein wasn't already already aware of his imperfection). Some see their role as the constant reminder to another of past mistakes. Rather than encourage dreamers, they seek to ground them.
But it's interesting to me that many don't see beauty when it emerges from ashes. Instead, many use the past mistakes of others as justification for:
1. Ignorance: you can't tell me not to do anything because you once did something equally stupid.
2. Avoidance: You're not perfect, so clearly you've nothing to say.
3. Laziness: my past determines my present. It's just too difficult to make different choices.
4. Short-term memory: I'll do what I want to do when I'm comfortable doing it. My past tells me it doesn't work, but I've gotten past past sins before. Look where I am now. Look at you.
5. Romanticism: Wasn't it great back then? Let's re-live the moments I thought I was having.
So those who might offer the most wisdom ("Don't do that. I've done it. It's bad and stupid.") aren't sought after precisely because they did something bad and stupid once. And those who remember that "the good old days weren't always good" aren't sought after precisely because they are seen as rewriting the past someone created in the present.
I'm fascinated and saddened that those who have caused great hurt in the past remember hurting only themselves.
So the key is to embrace the present so that when it is past you can revisit it in a healthy way.
And in that spirit, here's a few words of advice:
- Your greatest moments are in front of you, not behind you. I don't care how old you are. If you cease to believe that they are in front, then your greatest moments are guaranteed to be behind you. Opportunities that lie in waiting on the road ahead are sure to be ignored.
- It's never too late to live a noble life. If you've made a wrong choice, you can choose to respond rightly to the consequences of that choice. God is in the business of taking the mess you make and cleaning it up so He can build sturdier things on the landscape of your heart.
- If you are a believer and you don't believe you can or will change then your problem isn't you. You've got a serious problem with God. Because He has promised to enter your life and transform it. It just requires your followship. Perhaps a better question to ask is: how hard are you actually following?
- The best measurement of your progress isn't in your present. It's not on the side of the hill or at the vantage point. Those are great moments, but they can distort how far or close you are to the peak. As a follower, yours isn't the mountain to choose. Yours is the choice is to stay on it. And looking behind you won't help: your past can get warped by your emotions.
- Your past should be an encouragement - not of a life built, but of a life spent in pursuit of the One who gives life. The thief comes to steal, kill and destroy. Jesus comes to give life abundantly.
- Don't sacrifice the good for the great. Having friends and hanging out is good. Having a nice home and beautiful family is good. Having a great job is good. Fearlessly following God in an insurrection of the status quo is great. What you are willing do die for should also determine what you're willing to live for.
|
