Considering The Blessing of Humility

In our day and age humility is not seen as a blessing. We live in the age of the big ego. This is the dawning of the age of narcissism. Our social media usage seems to stroke our pride as we seek after likes.

I‘m aware of the irony. I’m writing this on a blog, part of social media, hoping people will read it. But I’m hoping they will go beyond this blog post to the book I’m writing about: The Blessing of Humility by Jerry Bridges.

Jerry Bridges has written many books that I’ve found helpful in the course of my life as a Christian and a pastor. This is one of the last books he wrote prior to his death. I was unaware of its release until seeing it in a clearance sale. Good for me, but a sad reflection on society and even American church culture. This is a book too many of us need to read.

Pride is like bad breath, everyone knows you have it before you do. The struggle against pride is one that is a daily affair, if we are paying attention. Over time I’ve read a few books on the topic including Humility: the Forgotten Virtue by Wayne Mack, and Humility by C.J. Mahaney. I used Mack’s book for our Men’s study at one point.

In Bridges’ book, he looks at the Beatitudes as a description of humility. Humility is one of the twin traits of mature Christianity. The other is love.

Bridges notes that in Jesus’ day, humility was looked down upon in Roman culture, the dominant culture of the day. Before moving into the Beatitudes, he addresses some key texts including 1 Peter 5 which joins precepts and promises.

Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” ⁶ Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you,…

Humility is the metaphorical clothing we should wear as we appear in public. We are to be humble in our relationships with others and with God, in keeping with the two great commandments upon which hang the whole law. While humility seems off-putting and working against our advancement in life, God offers promises of grace and glory for those who humble themselves in this way. There is promised blessing for humility.

Bridges view of the Beatitudes is one of what a sanctified person looks like. While our failure to possess these characteristics as we should points us to Jesus who perfectly manifested them for imputed righteousness, we must not stop there. Like Mark Jones, Bridges sees this as a description of imparted righteousness in sanctification. The Beatitudes reflect whom Jesus is making us as He conforms us to His likeness. Thus we are to seek these traits and therefore humility.

“In the Beatitudes Jesus is talking about the character traits of those already in the kingdom.”

In this relatively short book, just under 150 pages, he explains teach character trait and ties it to humility. With short chapters it can be read devotionally. It contains a study guide in the back for group study or personal reflection and application of the material.

What we find is not an exhaustive book, but certainly a helpful book. It is not very technical, assuming a knowledge of the original languages or lots of theological terminology. It is written for ordinary people to study. He often connects the ideas he is exploring with hymns that express those sentiments. It is rich in Scripture and hymnody.

Humility is poor in spirit. We recognize that we are spiritually destitute and unable to please God in ourselves. Our struggle with sin is far more profound than we realize, and realizing that is half the battle. Maturity means increasing in our awareness of this ongoing struggle. Our focus shifts from our actions to our attitudes and thoughts.

It is because we are still practicing sinners that we mourn. We mourn our spiritual poverty. We aren’t simply aware of our continuing sinfulness but broken hearted about our continuing rebellion.

Meekness points us to the humility of accepting the difficult circumstances in our lives as part of God’s wise, loving providence. Following Thomas Watson (for Bridges loved the Puritans as well as hymns) he applies meekness toward other people in terms of “bearing of injuries, the forgiving of injuries, and the returning of good for evil.” We will all be subject to the sins of others against us. Humility does not retaliate but bears, forgives (!) and bestows good. This is so contrary to our prideful flesh what strikes out, bears grudges and tries to destroy the offender. Our words are often weapons we use against them.

“Meekness is a defining grace, produced by the Holy Spirit in the life of the Christian, which characterizes that person’s response towards God and man.”

We also have a hunger and thirst for righteousness, to be personally righteous. Such hunger and thirst is not so we don’t need Jesus but so we are like Jesus and bring Him glory. Prideful righteousness, religiosity, is an attempt at self-salvation. It is in this section in particular that Bridges distinguishes between positional and personal (what he calls experiential) righteousness. If I am a Christian I need not hunger and thirst for positional righteousness. I have it! But I do for personal righteousness.

Jesus then moved to mercy, and so did Bridges. He develops the idea of mercy as compassion in action. It is not simply empathy but moving to relieve misery as seen in Isaiah 58 among other places. Part of mercy is remembering the sins of others no more. This is not forgetting but choosing not to bring those sins up against them anymore. This happens only as we see the fact that God no longer remembers our many and grievous sins.

Another aspect of humility is purity of heart or whole-heartedness. He ties this into the fact that we are not our own but have been bought with a price. We are property of Jesus, as Bob Dylan sang long ago. Purity of heart recognizes this and seeks to see all of life through that lens.

Conflict is regularly addressed in Scripture. When I recently preached through Philippians I was shocked to discover how much this “epistle of joy” was marked by conflict. As someone going through a prolonged conflict, I found hope as well as conviction as I struggled to preach through such a “simple” letter. Humility seeks peace, and makes peace. Peacemaking is very difficult and goes against all our basic inclinations to seek peace on our terms. In other words, there complete surrender.

“To be a peacemaker, then, means we absorb the hurtful words or actions of others without becoming resentful, retaliating, or even cutting off a relationship with the person.”

Humility is revealed in how we respond to being persecuted for righteousness’ sake. While it is appropriate for American Christians to seek protection in our earthly citizenship (Paul, as Bridges notes, appealed to his Roman citizenship at times) we should recognize that our courts system will fail us eventually. We may lose our rights as the tide rises against Christianity. While experiencing hostility, we are not to be hostile but humble. Bridges reminds to entrust ourselves to our Creator, like Jesus, and continue to do good in keeping with 1 Peter 2.

He ends with humility and the gospel. He channels his inner Jack Miller and talks about preaching the gospel to himself and yourself every day. The gospel is not simply the door we walk through to begin life as a Christian but the path we walk as Christians. Humility only grows in gospel soil.

“It is the gospel that will keep us from becoming discourage and will instead motivate us to keep pursuing humility, even when we fail so often.”

This little book is gospel-drenched. That means it is encouraging, not discouraging. Our failures are opportunities to look to Jesus, not a call to despair or simply try harder. The humble and meek Jesus is ready to pardon and help us. Humility keeps coming to Jesus as our only hope. As we do this we find ourselves no better than others, in part because we are not focused on their sins so much. Our sins, and theirs, drive us to Jesus who deals with us as a wonderful, merciful Savior.

This is a book worth the time to read and think about.

 

Read Full Post »

Considering Policy

It is election season. In all the hubbub about impeachment (for the last 3 years) it is easy to lose sight of the debates and televised town halls that have been going on for the last 6 months. The 20 has slowly been dwindling in our game of who offers the most free stuff and is most relatable.

There have  been plenty of policy proposals. Some of those are slightly different than current policies, and some are vastly different. Some promise “big structural change.” I won’t go into how that scares the pants off me for now.

In the September 28, 2019 edition of World Magazine, Janie B. Cheaney has an interesting piece on policy. She begins with a documentary called One Child Nation which examines the effects of China’s “one-child policy”.

In one clip, the co-director (who grew up under the policy but now lives in the states) says, “I left a country where the government forced women to abort, and I moved to another country where governments restrict abortions.” Well, some states do. She seems to think, Cheaney says, that the central issue is government attitudes toward women (hear the cries of the ‘war on women’). The issue doesn’t seem to be “human life itself.”

The people interviewed in the clips seemed to fall back on “Policy is policy.” People feel helpless in the face of government policy. They have less impact in a system like China’s. Here we can vote, and we should evaluate policy.

In China the policy was enacted by top-level party members. The expressed problem they were trying to solve was “overpopulation.” Abortion was a means of population control. The resulting unintended consequences are a demographic nightmare (not enough women because parents wanted sons to care for them in old age). They self-corrected to a two-child maybe policy where if you have a girl you can apply for permission to have a second child in the hopes of having a boy. Cheaney notes that in the future they may have to require two children to fix the problem they created with their one-child policy.

Bad policy creates very negative consequences that are often addressed by the same group of people who gave you the bad policy in the first place. They create problems and then try to fix them, often having the same level of success. The ACA tried to fix our healthcare system, for instance. At least that is what we were told before it was crammed down our throats with a series of statements that proved false. It really messed up the healthcare system because it “fixed” the wrong things (in my opinion) and in the wrong way. We elected people to fix it in 2016, and they failed to get the necessary votes (thanks to the senators from my state, both of whom are no longer senators but one ran expressly on getting rid of Obamacare). Now we have different plans proposed in these debates without substantial debate on the motives, means and consequences of the plan. We have this on healthcare, student debt, gun control, climate issues and more.

“Policy has become the end-all of politics. Bad policy caused the current mess, however we define the messiness; good policy will fix it.”

Cheaney rightly notes that policy should be at the end of the discussion, not the beginning. Policy is the ‘how’ of a solution to a problem. First we have to sort out the “what” and the “why” of the particular problem. She goes back to China’s one-child policy. The stated rationale was overpopulation and therefore potential starvation of the population (obviously not the party elite, they always seem to eat). They didn’t consider the effect of their policies regarding how food was grown. They didn’t evaluate their communist system and whether it could feed that many people or not. The issue was their economic and political framework. Because they failed to examine their presuppositions, they came up with really bad policy. They also failed to consider the nature and value of human life. What matters to them is the Party.

We have the same policy problems. We don’t look at our presuppositions that drive a policy proposal. We don’t stop to think about what caused a problem. We treat symptoms instead of the disease and have bigger problems before we know it.

Here is a policy gone awry. In 1986 the Boston Celtics won the NBA title AND had the 2nd overall pick it the draft. Choosing Maryland standout Len Bias, it seemed the dynasty would be able to continue beyond Larry Bird. He flew up to his press conference in Boston, went home afterward and died overnight due to a cocaine overdose. This was high profile! This prompted policy change so “this never happens again.” The Len Bias Law, as it came to be called, increased the penalties on the local distributor of drugs. As a result large numbers of African-American men were incarcerated. Once in that system, it is amazingly difficult to become disentangled. Getting out of prison rarely means freedom. As a felon it is hard to get a job (due to policy), and other limitations and policies make it even harder to be employable. The person imprisoned by bad policy finds him or herself continuously constrained by bad policy (however well-intentioned) that continues to keep them impoverished materially, emotionally, relationally and even spiritually.

One of the great ironies is that most of these candidates are lawmakers in DC. Amazingly, they don’t seem to have proposed any of these in the form of law to this point (which if they are so awesome their colleagues should all vote for them) . In other words, they haven’t been doing their current jobs as legislators but make policy proposals so they can become President, the chief executive. They don’t really want their policy proposals seriously examined and debated until after they get in office. This is not a 2020 issue, but has been this way for awhile. Rather than electing people who have a track record of good policy, we are continually asked to vote for people on the basis of their promised policy about problems they usually helped create by voting on bad policy in the past.

Policy has its place. Let’s put it there.

Read Full Post »

Considering (Yet) Another Surgery

This week I brought my son to Pasadena for surgery. It was at least his tenth.

He was born with a bilateral cleft lip and palate. We knew this when we adopted him. We were “young” and foolish. By that I mean we had no clue what we were in store for as his parents.

Don’t get me wrong. We love him. We can’t imagine life without him. We wouldn’t undo this. I must mean we had no clue.

His lip was initially repaired while he was still in China. Shortly after we adopted him we had his lip revised and, more importantly his palate repaired. That wasn’t all in the first year with us. His tubes came out and had to be replaced. This was with an ENT and an outpatient surgery at the Arnold Palmer Children’s Hospital. I still have nightmares of that day. He came out of surgery as a drunken, angry sailor. They needed the room for the next patient so I was told it was time to go. I was supposed to take this drugged rage machine on an hour-long car ride by myself. Seriously?!

Later that year a fistula opened up and when the spaghetti started coming out of his nose it was repaired to prevent infection. Back were the arm restraints and the instruction that he wasn’t supposed to be active for about a week. Yeah …. right. Not this human dynamo.

Amazingly, though I was between jobs that year we survived all those surgeries without going into debt. I still don’t understand, but I’m thankful.

During that first year he started speech therapy. The first therapist, working with an active 2 year-old boy, said “No one will ever understand him. You’d better teach him sign language.” Thankfully we weren’t willing to give up and listen to him. There was soon a new speech therapist.

After we moved to AZ in 2010 we discovered there was no cleft palate team in our city. We considered a team in Phoenix but ended up in LA. So far he’s had 5 surgeries there including his bone grafts, P-flap surgery and the removal of teeth from his palate.

In 2012 he had a tympanoplasty to repair the hole in his ear left by the tubes which wasn’t healing.

All this time there has been speech therapy. The last 6 years we’ve been in the local schools reading in lobbies and hallways while he had therapy. It is still rough, but the boy speaks and people understand. At times it is tough because he mumbles like all teenaged boys. Those surgeries have slowly helped him properly make the sounds he needed to make so we can understand him. He’s getting there, no thanks to that first speech therapist.

Is there a point here?

There are a few, actually.

I cry every time I’m in the room with him preparing for another surgery. I see how Adam’s sin has broken my son. It seems like it will never end. We helpless in light of all this.

Sometimes it is hard to see, or recognize, the effects of Adam’s sin for what they are. My son’s condition makes it clear to me. It breaks me.

Little by little he’s being restored. There is progress but it is slow and incremental. Just like our sanctification. His speech gets better. His teeth are getting straighter. He’s growing and maturing.

I’m astounded by God’s mercy to us. And His provision. In all of this we haven’t incurred debt. When I stop to think about it I’m astounded. Ten surgeries and 12 years of speech therapy. Oh and the extensive orthodontic work. If you had told us about those surgeries and length of therapy we would have been overwhelmed and wondered if we should adopt him. But we would have missed out on so much.

Everybody loves him. I haven’t met a person who didn’t like him. He’s creative, if timid. I wasn’t sure was ever going to swim, but now he loves it. He makes all kinds of things with Legos and K’Nex: guns, crossbows, planes etc.

He’s the toughest kid I know. He’s not wild about having surgery and it intimidates him. But he often avoids pain meds (he hates opioids). He bounces back quickly. In some ways he’s a hero to me. He’s endured so much but isn’t bitter.

With his peach fuzz and new hair styles he’s slowly becoming a man. There will still be bumps in the road, but I’m so amazed how far he has come.

The One who has been faithful so far, will faithful be.

Update: 3 days after surgery and said “I found my S.” I was a bit confused so I asked what he meant. “I can make my S sound.” He has struggled with the S for years. He then proceeded to say a number of words with a clear S sound. “Is that because they removed those teeth?”

“Yes.”

“Are you glad you had the surgery?”

“Yes, it’s like an early Christmas.”

And my heart broke again. In a good way. God is good.

 

 

Read Full Post »

Considering the Red Sox 2019 Season

Last night the Red Sox were officially eliminated from the playoffs. They are an 80-something win team after a dominant 2018 season that saw them win over 100 games and the World Series by beating the Yankees, Astros and Dodgers.

What in the world happened????

Much of this falls on Dombrowski, which is why he is no longer employed by the Red Sox. I didn’t say all, but much. There there is much for which he is responsible. He didn’t play, but he didn’t get the right players for them to defend their title.

He did have salary restrictions, but the problem was how he handled those restrictions. While the Sox ain’t broke, they don’t want to experience increasing sanctions, like draft picks for exceeding the cap.

The Bull Pen

Dombrowski let both Joe Kelly and Craig Kimbrel walk. I understand, they wanted more money and the Red Sox couldn’t afford them. They didn’t have great seasons. Kelly had an ERA over 4.60 this season. Kimbrel held out and has probably spent more time on the IL than on the mound. I had my doubts about him last season. He was starting to give me heart trouble by putting guys on.

The problem really is that Dombrowski didn’t replace them. He used “internal” options, meaning guys who had experience as a closer. Oh, and success. Unless you want to include the junk heap guys who spent most of the time in the minors.

The result? Only the Baltimore Orioles had a lower save percentage. Too often saves were blown, leads lost and comebacks squandered. It doesn’t how many runs your offense puts up if your pitching gives up more. This was the sad tale of the 2019 Red Sox.

The Rotation

One of the two signings by Dombrowski was to re-sign Nathan Eovaldi after his impressive post-season saving performance. He has a long-term record of injuries and inconsistency to go along with that fastball. He gave the Sox plenty of both, and they should expect to see more since they signed him for 4 years and there are 3 to go. This doesn’t bode well, and is a big part of the hole that Dombrowski dug moving forward.

So, the Red Sox entered the season with 4 starting pitchers who had recent histories of injuries. What happened? E-Rod who has battled injures and inconsistency finally became the pitcher we wanted him to become.

The aforementioned Eovaldi, Price and Sale spent large portions of the season on the IL instead of the pitching mound getting outs. Their inability to perform wore out a bull pen that wasn’t very talented to begin with. Porcello was healthy but had probably his worst season ever.

All that falls on Dombrowski who mismanaged the offseason. They have tons of money tied up in starting pitching that has proven to be largely unreliable. They will have to replace Porcello. Hopefully whomever they pick can do better than his 5.56 ERA at considerably less money. But they will need depth in the system which they didn’t have this season.

Dombrowski’s other “big” move was to bring back Steve Pearce who ended up with a whopping 89 at bats this season. His injury made way for Michael Chavis who provided some power when he played. Chavis was a bright spot much of the time.

The Offense

The offense was potent once again. Betts was less aggressive, and regressed significantly. There were only glimpses of his greatness at the plate. This was countered by Rafael Devers’ emergence as a force to be reckoned with going forward.

The Future

The problem is J.D. Martinez has a player option and will likely opt out. There is a good chance he’s wearing another uniform next year. JBJ is set to be a free agent as well so you need an outfielder who can at least hit .250 and provide some above average defense. Perhaps no one else wants a .220 hitter with superior defense and he’ll come back for a discount.

But Betts …. with one year of arbitration he’s likely a trade chip for pitching or gone as a free agent in 2021. This is the primary reason Dombrowski was let go. As a “lame duck” with one year left on his deal, he wasn’t the guy to handle this key off season.

The key players the Red Sox seem to have in their system seem to be infielders. While they do need a first baseman and second baseman, they are well set at third and short. But they have significant needs in the outfield, the rotation, bullpen and possibly DH. This is a problem that Dombrowski helped create, and like a politician he probably won’t be able to fix the mess he made.

This is a significant off season that will establish whether or not they will be competing with the Yankees or the Orioles for the next decade. We know who won’t be making these decisions, but we don’t know who will.

 

 

Read Full Post »

Considering Evangelism as Exiles

The times they are a-changing. That should be fairly obvious to anyone in America. Some resist the changes, while others adapt.

That includes Christians.

During the 2016 election I preached thru Esther to prepare people for this new world. I saw the two options as slow change and fast change. Both seemed more like the Persian king that I was comfortable thinking about.

I followed up Esther with 1 Peter to prepare my people for life as exiles. We are shifting to a post-Christian culture. As part of the previous majority, Christians are commonly disparaged by those seeking to re-balance the scales. I tried to draw this out and apply it to evangelism.

I wish the new book Evangelism as Exiles: Life on Mission as Strangers in Our Own Land by Elliot Clark was available at that time. Clark draws on his experiences as a missionary in a closed country to apply the message of 1 Peter to the newer American context. He provides us with a thoughtful exploration of evangelism as we move into the future where Christians are not welcome, just like Peter’s original audience.

After a foreword by D.A. Carson, Clark offers us an introduction (Embracing Exile) and 6 chapters to develop some of the primary themes in Peter’s letter: the hope of glory, godly fear, respect for others, evangelism as doxology and our true home. This is not a very long book (just over 150 pages). It will both comfort you and discomfort you. Filled with gospel hopes you also find some gospel imperatives as well.

Carson notes that opposition can be either cultural or judicial. Our missionaries would experience both at times, but we may have experienced some cultural opposition here in America. That opposition is increasing, and we are beginning to experience judicial opposition. This will mean that nominal Christians will fall by the wayside. But we have to consider how we will respond.

“Instead of whining and feeling sorry for ourselves because the culture is becoming unrecognizable, Christians should align their vision with that of the most mature first-century Christians.” D.A. Carson

It is time for many Christians to realize that the cultural war is over. It is post-D-Day and pre-VE day to borrow an analogy. We can live in fear and anger. Or we can realize there are profound gospel opportunities we didn’t have before. The New Testament was written to a church that was a cultural and religious minority. Therefore, there is much for us to discover there about our new cultural situation.

Peter wrote to “elect exiles”. Since become Christians, these people were exiles in the same cities they lived in before they converted. They engaged in evangelism despite lacking cultural power and influence. They relied on the Spirit and the Word more than programs and events. We may have to leave our programs and events but will still have the Word and Spirit.

Jesus experienced opposition from the Pharisees, scribes, Herodians, Sadducees, his own family, Roman officials and communities that were afraid of him. Sinners hate God and his gospel. When we represent God and his gospel, they may hate us too. Throughout his letter, Peter highlighted “the overlapping realities of their experience with the Savior’s.”

“In a world of seemingly unending shame, opposition, struggle, weakness, affliction, and persecution, the certainty of future glory is the unstoppable heartbeat of our enduring hope.”

Peter wanted them to know of their certain future, their hope. This future glory is Jesus’ shared glory. The afflictions we experience, and abuse heaped on us, cannot change or diminish that glory. We have a certain future, so don’t be overwhelmed by the uncertainty in the short-term.

I get it. I worry about how my kids will live. Will they have opportunities? Will they be persecuted? I’ve long thought I’ll probably end up in jail for my faith, and that may still happen. We need to keep our eyes fixed on Jesus and the promise of glory.

Clark speaks of shame, not fear, as perhaps the greatest impediment to evangelism. Shame excludes. Exiles don’t fit in, and no one will let them in. Future glory is the only antidote to the power of shame.

“God has put us in these places, positions, and relationships for a reason, and that reason, among others, is to proclaim the good news of Christ.”

While shame may be the greatest impediment, fear is a real problem too. He reminds us that the biblical antidote to the fear of man is the fear of God. Clark brings us to Isaiah 8, for instance, to help us to see that Peter’s message wasn’t new nor novel. It is, however, relevant.

Not only should we fear God, but Clark reminds us to fear for them. Judgment is real too. They will face judgment. These two fears should motivate us to make the gospel known to people.

As Christians we are to honor everyone. Peter calls us to gentleness and respect as we make Jesus known. This is not natural to us. We want to revile in return. We want to mock and ridicule. That doesn’t work so well for evangelism which is a way to love other people. To do it in an unloving fashion works against the goal. Perhaps we need to rethink how to interact online. We do need to realize we are not inviting them into short-term glory but rather to be outcasts with us. The glory will come later.

Evangelism is about worship too, as Clark reminds us from 1 Peter 2. Perhaps we don’t evangelize because our hearts are not filled with His praises.

In the midst of this, Clark redefines our understanding of “opportunities”. We tend to reduce opportunities to those times we think the person will be open. We are like guys who will only ask a girl out if they think it likely she’ll say ‘yes’. Instead, we are to proclaim the gospel in season and out. We are heralds of the kingdom, not salesmen looking for an easy mark.

Peter, Clark notes, repeatedly returns to Noah who was a preacher of righteousness. He preached despite a lack of success. He didn’t figure out which way the wind was blowing but by faith was obedient to God even though those around him couldn’t conceive of a flood. People today can’t really conceive of a judgment that involves them. Yet, the Great Commission stands as a gospel responsibility.

Holiness matters too! Personal holiness authenticates the message we bring. Jesus changes people. He imputes righteousness to us in justification, and imparts righteousness to us in sanctification. We aren’t saved because we are holy, but are saved to be made holy.

He then moves into hospitality. In Peter’s day there were no hotels. Inns were often places with questionable and immoral behavior. Church planting teams, itinerant preachers and traveling Christians needed a place to stay. Christians were to open their doors to them. Worship took place in people’s homes as well. Evangelism includes inviting people into your homes as you offer them an eternal home. In closed countries hospitality is an essential part of friendship and therefore evangelism. It will be so here too.

Clark touches on some important topics in this book. It is not simply theoretical, as seen in the stories from his life on the mission field. This is a great corrective to the average American Christian’s view of evangelism and culture.

Do you feel like a stranger in your own country?

Do you feel a desire to share the gospel with people who seem so different from you?

If you answered yes to those questions, this book is for you. You will find the book both comforting and challenging. May God move us into the world as heralds of the good news.

Read Full Post »