I'm Okay With the Middle of the Road

The middle of the road always had a bad rap when I was growing up in the church. It was usually associated with being "lukewarm" spiritually, not having the courage of your convictions, and the place where the devil lulls us asleep, rendering us ineffective for the Kingdom. I understand the metaphor and I certainly don't advocate a lukewarm spirituality or weakness in convictions. And - as much as I love sleep - I really don't want to be lulled to sleep by the devil. I wonder, though, if the middle of the road deserves only these negative connotations.

Sometimes I think that this repudiation of the middle of the road has led some within the church to an extreme, all or nothing kind of approach to almost everything. If a new movement, approach to ministry, another church, or book has anything within it that they do not agree with, they feel compelled to reject it entirely. After all, in their thinking, to accept any of it is a sign of compromise, and compromise leads you straight to middle of the road spiritual complacency. As a result, the church ends up bouncing between extremes, with people becoming entrenched on either side of the divide, their reactions always pushing them further apart. Now I might be wrong, but I'm not sure that's a healthy approach to life in the Body of Christ.

I look at myself and realize that I am a strange blend of strengths and weaknesses, positives and pitfalls, gifts and inabilities. All of us are. And those same characteristics, both good and bad, will naturally be reflected in what I do, what I create, and the groups I belong to. I am glad that the people in my life have not taken an all or nothing approach in their relationship with me. They appreciate my strengths and help me in my weakness; they learn from me, and I from them; we disagree at points, but still accept one another. We meet in the middle of the road, so to speak. Why would the followers of Jesus not demonstrate that same spirit toward one another? Why would we feel that we must agree with someone on every point in order to learn something from them, or even to accept them?

We would be much better served by an attitude of discernment and humble reflection than we are by the fear-driven, all or nothing approach. I don't have to agree with or accept everything, but I can listen, discern, humbly learn, take what is good and useful, and leave behind that which I cannot accept. But when points of disagreement result in our absolute rejection of anything and everything about another person or church, we find ourselves living in a place of dangerous and unhealthy extremes. Forced into our narrow box of understanding, we become blind to our own weaknesses and ineffectiveness, all the while missing out on the growth and benefit we could receive from other brothers and sisters in Christ.

It seems that some become so frightened of the middle of the road that they end up jumping off the ledge. We need to realize that it doesn't matter which side of the cliff you fall off of - it's still going to hurt. Personally, I have come to the conclusion that the middle of the road is not always a bad place to be, and we can even live there with passion and conviction. And, after all, it's got to be healthier than falling off a ledge, right?

Scripture, Love, and Authority

I recently read Scot McKnight's book, The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible. I realize the title will set off alarm bells for all those who believe that "rethinking" anything about the Bible must certainly represent a low view of Scripture and be yet another indication of our trajectory toward heresy and chaos. Relax - it's okay. Rethinking is not necessarily a bad thing, and I actually came away from the book with an awareness that, at times, our well-intentioned defenses of the Bible actually lessen its power and place in our lives. McKnight calls us to approach the Bible relationally, as explained in these words:

A relational approach believes our relationship to the Bible is transformed into a relationship with the God who speaks to us in and through the Bible. . . If we distinguish God from the Bible, then we also learn that in listening to God's words in the Bible we are in search of more than a relationship with paper with words, namely, a relationship with the person who speaks on paper. Our relationship to the Bible is actually a relationship with the God of the Bible. We want to emphasize that we don't ask what the Bible says, we ask what God says to us in that Bible. (p. 90-91)

We must begin an entirely new conversation that gets us beyond the right view of the Bible to one that seeks to answer this question: "What is our relationship to the God of the Bible?" I suggest that the answer to that question, and one that comes to mind immediately for the one who reads the Bible attentively, is simple: Our relationship to the God of the Bible is to listen to God so we can love him more deeply and love others more completely. If God's ultimate design for us is to love God and to love others, we can only acquire that love by learning to listen to God. (p. 96)

It is easy, when defending a so-called high view of Scripture, to treat the Bible as a theological treatise to be debated, a rule book to be followed, or a history text to be proven. While these approaches might contain elements of truth, each one falls short in its understanding, severing the Bible from its true purpose and reducing its role in the lives of Jesus' followers. The Bible is an expression of relationship, a place of personal encounter where we hear God speak. Such an encounter will certainly and necessarily change us, drawing us deeper into the life of love for God and others.

It's interesting that some who are greatly concerned about defending the authority of Scripture end up doing so in ways that violate the spirit of love. Yet the words we defend make it clear that the greatest commands are to love God and others. Clearly, the role and purpose of the Bible in our lives cannot be separated from that call. So we must ask the question: "If our interaction with the Bible is not resulting in a greater love for God and others, do we really have a high view of Scripture?"

Getting Personal

The temperature where I live hit about 10 below this morning and, to be honest, I absolutely love it. On days like this, I usually step outside several times during the day without a coat on just experience and enjoy the cold air. There's something about it I like, a quality that is fresh and enlivening. Yes, I know - I'm weird. Your further comments on this subject are unnecessary.

Although I prefer the word "unique" over "weird," I freely admit that I am different in many respects from others around me. But that's okay because so are you. We are all different in a variety of ways and every circumstance in life is unique. As a result, all of our interactions and relationships have a sense of singularity about them, like snowflakes with no two ever being exactly the same. Every relationship possesses a unique quality, every situation or circumstance occurs at a unique point of time shaped by specific and varying factors. The relationships and events of our lives, while exhibiting elements of commonality, are in themselves as exclusive and particular as we are individually.

Why then do I so often expect God to act and respond the same way in every person's life and in every circumstance of my life? Although we talk about a personal relationship with God, we do not expect to experience the dynamic and unique qualities that are exhibited in a true, personal relationship. We assume that God works in everyone's life the same way, that their testimony and spiritual journey must necessarily mirror our own. We presume that God must, in fact, respond to our prayer in a specific way if we simply have faith. We insist that if God is never changing that must mean He will work the same way today as He did yesterday, that previous experiences will be replicated in every circumstance and for everyone else.

Sometimes it feels like we are not really looking for a personal relationship with a personal and relational God. Rather, we prefer to view God as some type of eternal vending machine where we deposit this currency called faith and out drops nicely packaged and uniform products of healing, deliverance, forgiveness, growth, and so on. But relationship don't work that way; they can't work that way. The uniqueness of each individual and every situation produces a dynamic and uncommon quality in every relationship and response. Yes, God is always loving and redemptive, but how that is revealed in my life my look different than it does in my neighbor's life. God is always at work, bringing about His purpose and the purposes of His Kingdom, but how He did that in my life yesterday may not be the way He does it tomorrow. If our God is truly personal and relational, then we must set aside the cookie cutter expectations in this journey of faith.

There is a profound and somewhat disconcerting statement made in the C.S. Lewis book, Prince Caspian. When Lucy asks Aslan why he didn't rush in and rescue them like before, the great lion responds, "Things never happen the same way twice." If this life of faith is one of genuine relationship with a personal God, then so it must be.

If You Happen to Disagree. . .

I have been questioned, and even criticized at times, for reading books and listening to speakers that come from a different perspective than my own. For those who have raised these questions, the issue is not simply one of secular versus Christian books - it's primarily a concern over reading works from another Christian tradition or those that would disagree with us at certain theological points. The reasoning behind it seems to be twofold: first, my reading of the book could be seen as an implicit acceptance of all that it teaches, and second, I am putting myself in danger of being led astray. Sorry, but I look at it differently. Let me share with you some of the reasons that I read, and will continue to read, books that come from a different theological perspective, even ones with which I disagree.

1.) Doing so teaches me to discern and develops my ability to think through an issue. If I only read books and articles from those I know I'm supposed to agree with, I can walk through the motions of reading without truly thinking. When I encounter something that I know is coming from another perspective, I am forced to read and think carefully, consult the Scriptures, and turn to others for their opinion. Discernment must be practiced to be learned.

2.) Listening to those who disagree with me helps me to clarify, define, and express my own beliefs more effectively. When we are in dialogue with those who fully agree with us, we don't have to explain and communicate everything clearly or accurately. Some things, among those of like mind, are simply understood and accepted. However, when we listen to those from outside our tradition, we gain a sense of how our beliefs are perceived and understood by others. Those conversations force me to clarify and define my views more carefully, and engaging those with whom I disagree teaches me to communicate my beliefs more fully and effectively.

3.) The fact that I disagree with someone on some things doesn't mean they are wrong about everything. I think we need to be humble enough to admit that we can learn from others, even when there are points of disagreement. When we isolate ourselves to the point that we will only listen to those who fully agree with us, we necessarily limit our potential for growth intellectually, spiritually, and relationally.

4.) I cannot assume that I am absolutely right about absolutely everything. Certainly, there are essentials that I hold to and values I will not compromise. However, it is ridiculous to assume that every thought, interpretation, and opinion I have is fully perfected and without error. Only reading and listening to those who agree with me will keep me blind to my weaknesses. It is those who disagree with me that reveal the weaknesses and inconsistencies within my system of thought and practice. Let's face it - sometimes our critics are right.

You know, when you think about it, it's pretty much impossible for two thinking people to fully agree on everything all the time. So, if we took this idea of only reading or listening to those who agree with us and carried it to its logical (or extreme) conclusion, we would all end up sitting in a room alone, talking only to ourselves. You're probably thinking that would be the best thing for me right now. It's okay - I'll still listen to you even though I disagree.