My freshman year of college I coached a middle school boys basketball team and PE class. I remember that at the time I received a lot of advice about emphasizing a lot of things: equal playing time, enjoying the experience of playing, growing in skill, seeing others succeed, etc. - almost everything except winning. This was when protecting the self-esteem of students and players had come to its climax, or at least was as high a virtue as it had ever been in years past.
This kind of leading never appealed to me, though I didn't contest it often. I merely went about my business trying to win, as well as give equal playing time, emphasize personal improvement, and team-playing whenever appropriate. And then yesterday, while playing kick ball with some friends and my kids, it hit me: it's not that people don't like winning, we just don't like braggers, and the reason (I think) that winning has been demonized in recent decades is that we no longer know how to conceive of winners without also seeing them become braggers.
This distinction between winning and bragging makes a big difference, especially for the Church, for, being God's "own possession", she necessarily participates in his victory at the end of history and his is one in which we all, who are her members, will take great delight and will shout with joy and rejoice with trembling. But this will be no bragging-rights festival: she will have done nothing to effect her own victory over her sin, over her flesh, over her Adversary, and over her finitude - Jesus Christ will have done it all, and will then be seen as the Victor we now by faith claim him to be.
It will be a victory, but not her own, and thus she (we) will have a full and overflowing joy in winning and will simultaneously be kept from the kind of self-aggrandizement that is so destructive to the admiration of spectators. "Salvation is of the Lord," says the prophet, and such a truth will be seen on the Last Day, as will the distinction between winning and bragging, for every saint will explode with joy in the victory of Jesus and none will be found to brag. Till then, let us not throw the baby out with the bath-water. Winning is as much a part of playing the game as are the rules; there's no point without either. But who can say that a winner who exemplifies humility is not one of the greatest joys to behold in all the world?
BHT
27 December 2008
22 December 2008
Alcohol and Happiness: Get the Order Right
One of the great delights I have in reading writers from generations other than the present is the freedom they enjoy: they are unconstrained by our contemporary consciences or sensitivities to speak with clarity and conviction (and often did so even in the face of their contemporaries' sensitivities). G. K. Chesterton is certainly one such writer. His affinity for alcohol is no secret to those familiar with him, but the manner in which he revels in it while writing is as delightful as the drink he celebrates.
BHT
It goes without saying that these two paragraphs will eliminate no one's addiction to drink, nor does it address a hundred other problems associated with alcohol, but who can deny how well Chesterton has put alcohol in its place: a means to greater joys than drink itself. The Italian peasant he pictures is not the one that Corona or Budweiser will choose to push their stuff - his joy is too rich for them.It is thought that one very wise and moderate position is to say that wine or such stuff should only be drunk as a medicine. With this I should venture to disagree with a peculiar ferocity. The one genuinely dangerous and immoral way of drinking wine is to drink it as a medicine, and for this reason: if a man drinks wine in order to obtain pleasure, he is trying to obtain something exceptional. But if a man drinks wine in order to obtain health, he is trying to get something natural.
The sound rule in the matter would appear to be like many other sound rules - a paradox. Drink because you are happy, but never because you are miserable. Never drink when you are wretched without it, or you will be like the grey-faced gin-drinker in the slum; but drink when you would be happy without it, and you will be like the laughing peasant of Italy. Never drink because you need it, for this is rational drinking, and the way to death and hell. But drink because you do not need it, for this is irrational drinking, and the ancient health of the world.
BHT
09 December 2008
(The) Prayer's Problem
I usually like to write about issues in such a way as to not leave any "loose ends", but I don't know whether I'll be able to on this one. I recently spent some time praying with a few friends, and we began (as has been our habit) acknowledging "good" things about God. In some circles this would correspond to Adoration (per the ACTS protocol of prayer: Adoration, Confession, Thanksgiving, Supplication) and is thought to be an appropriate way to begin speaking with God.
But the more I thought about it, I began to see that an unbeliever could likely view this practice as a pious form of "brown-nosing" (to put it crudely), or at least an acceptable form of manipulation: favors for compliments. After all, what would you think of someone who called you at home, only to begin the conversation by fawning all over you, reciting all your good qualities and the good things you've done for them over the years. You wouldn't need a HS diploma to know they wanted something from you, and that they may well be lying through their teeth and mean none of it.
So my questions (which I'm not sure I will answer) are two: first, why don't more Christians see this incongruity? and, second, why are our compliment-laden prayers not considered by God to be manipulation and/or merely a buttering-up of the Almighty?
As to the first, one possible (and cynical) answer is that most pray-ers don't think about their prayers. I recently read an agnostic who said that meal-time prayers were instrumental in his apostacy because he realized that in thanking God for his meal he was admitting it was God's gift, and that since there were so many millions going hungry in the world, God must therefore have withheld food from them, which seemed capricious and incongruent with God's nature; thus he abandoned the Christian faith. Now, whether or not God can or does withhold food from some and give it to others, I myself appreciated the consistency with which this agnostic carried out his thinking. If you give thanks for food, you are necessarily acknowledging God's sovereign sway over all things - from farmers who grow, to truckers who deliver, to grocers who sell - which would seem to settle the whole "sovereignty of God" question within Christendom.
Another possible (and less cynical) answer is that there must be a way to pay homage to one (a ruler, a friend, a doctor, a tradesman) from whom you want or need assistance that isn't manipulation but that is instead a fitting manner of appealing to them. I think, for instance, of a skilled musician: compliments given to he or she are not merely a way to get them to perform, but can be a way of showing that their skill and talent are of such a unique nature and quality that no other's skill and talent satisfy us; theirs alone is what we love to hear and enjoy.
As to the second question (why God apparently has no problem with our compliments), I imagine that it has much to do with the fact that he, just like we, delight to hear worthy things and people duly honored. When a skilled musician is complimented and asked to perform, there is a sense in which even the musician himself need not be ashamed, for otherwise he would be denying that his skill and talent were really admirable.
There is something about greatness that we love to see and experience (sinlessly), both our own as well as that of others, and when our heart is right, we really don't give a fig whose the greatness is. It is enough to behold it, which is why we love to tell God how great he is: He is the Lord and there is no other, and no one does what he does. Such a God would surely be majestic to behold "in action", and surely no other could compare.
BHT
But the more I thought about it, I began to see that an unbeliever could likely view this practice as a pious form of "brown-nosing" (to put it crudely), or at least an acceptable form of manipulation: favors for compliments. After all, what would you think of someone who called you at home, only to begin the conversation by fawning all over you, reciting all your good qualities and the good things you've done for them over the years. You wouldn't need a HS diploma to know they wanted something from you, and that they may well be lying through their teeth and mean none of it.
So my questions (which I'm not sure I will answer) are two: first, why don't more Christians see this incongruity? and, second, why are our compliment-laden prayers not considered by God to be manipulation and/or merely a buttering-up of the Almighty?
As to the first, one possible (and cynical) answer is that most pray-ers don't think about their prayers. I recently read an agnostic who said that meal-time prayers were instrumental in his apostacy because he realized that in thanking God for his meal he was admitting it was God's gift, and that since there were so many millions going hungry in the world, God must therefore have withheld food from them, which seemed capricious and incongruent with God's nature; thus he abandoned the Christian faith. Now, whether or not God can or does withhold food from some and give it to others, I myself appreciated the consistency with which this agnostic carried out his thinking. If you give thanks for food, you are necessarily acknowledging God's sovereign sway over all things - from farmers who grow, to truckers who deliver, to grocers who sell - which would seem to settle the whole "sovereignty of God" question within Christendom.
Another possible (and less cynical) answer is that there must be a way to pay homage to one (a ruler, a friend, a doctor, a tradesman) from whom you want or need assistance that isn't manipulation but that is instead a fitting manner of appealing to them. I think, for instance, of a skilled musician: compliments given to he or she are not merely a way to get them to perform, but can be a way of showing that their skill and talent are of such a unique nature and quality that no other's skill and talent satisfy us; theirs alone is what we love to hear and enjoy.
As to the second question (why God apparently has no problem with our compliments), I imagine that it has much to do with the fact that he, just like we, delight to hear worthy things and people duly honored. When a skilled musician is complimented and asked to perform, there is a sense in which even the musician himself need not be ashamed, for otherwise he would be denying that his skill and talent were really admirable.
There is something about greatness that we love to see and experience (sinlessly), both our own as well as that of others, and when our heart is right, we really don't give a fig whose the greatness is. It is enough to behold it, which is why we love to tell God how great he is: He is the Lord and there is no other, and no one does what he does. Such a God would surely be majestic to behold "in action", and surely no other could compare.
BHT
05 December 2008
Getting Through to People
It came to me the other day: one of the ways that public speakers, and preachers in particular, have it pretty rough is their choice of words in speaking. It happened after I heard a biographical lecture on William Tyndale in which the speaker gave an example of the kind of linguistic training that Tyndale received in the 15th century. One assignment consisted of rewriting the statement "your letter delighted me very much".....(are you ready for this?).....150 times. It's not hard to see how one's vocabulary and facility with language would improve under such training, and how such an improvement would help usher one into the joys of compelling, powerful, vivid, precise, circumspect, nuanced, poignant, and helpful ways of expressing one's thoughts, not to mention the truths of the gospel.
However, not many today appreciate such skill or talent. If a preacher strives to give detail or be precise in his speech, he may be criticized for not speaking more "simply"; such speech, I imagine, may often be cited as "hard to understand" or to be in need of "fewer words and plainer ones". The mental stamina of the average person today is so deficient that this sentence may itself express more than he or she can apprehend in one reading (not to mention one hearing).
On the other hand, when a preacher, for fear of being perceived as an intellectual or of merely being misunderstood, resorts to the cliches and verbal ruts that are so common in contemporary news reports, sitcoms, movies, and increasingly in popular literature, he opens himself up to the accusation that he is "boring", "impractical", "unengaging", and, what is maybe most damning, "out of touch", since he couldn't put flesh on the bones of daily living.
How, then, shall he preach? Not having a pulpit of my own (though having taught for nearly 8 years), I can say that the harder one seeks to know one's hearers - to know what distracts their concentration most easily, to anticipate their objections, to begin thinking and speaking in their categories and know how to translate back into one's own - the more willing such hearers will be to give one a hearing.
In addition to this, read widely, and when you find yourself begnning to use - consciously at first, and then without knowing it - new words or familiar ones with nuanced meanings, expect a few raised eyebrows and praise God that he's not left you in a linguistically retarded state. One of the most tragic things I see today is an adult who is thought of as some kind of "genius" or "intellectual" merely for checking out books from the library for leisure reading that have nothing at all to do with professionaly development, personal improvement, or some immediate problem in their life (or someone they know). One of the most life-depriving mental states we can inhabit is to stop inquiring. G.K. Chesterton commented that "there are no uninteresting subjects, only uninterested people." It is possible to be blind to what others find infinitely attractive and interesting (just as others find some of our own interests without interest); however, it is impossible for the God who created such realities as blue, gravity, infinity, and infant giggles to have allowed into his creation anything boring. Even spoons, when correctly employed, can entertain us for hours.
Finally, expect to draw upon what you've read in casual conversation. Not that you want to shut down others' opinions who may be easily intimidated just because you now know how the Communists came to power in China or why Americans tend to be more individualistic than do Europeans; that's not the point. The point is that Communism and individualism have causes and factors that led up to them and that explain why events, people, inventions, and movements turn out the way they do. And it behooves human beings to understand these things to the best of their abilities. No, most of us will never get the kind of recognition that so many today seek as they pursue such knowledge, but it may just help you become a more informed voter, a more patient friend, and more disciplined student, and more admirable human being.
BHT
However, not many today appreciate such skill or talent. If a preacher strives to give detail or be precise in his speech, he may be criticized for not speaking more "simply"; such speech, I imagine, may often be cited as "hard to understand" or to be in need of "fewer words and plainer ones". The mental stamina of the average person today is so deficient that this sentence may itself express more than he or she can apprehend in one reading (not to mention one hearing).
On the other hand, when a preacher, for fear of being perceived as an intellectual or of merely being misunderstood, resorts to the cliches and verbal ruts that are so common in contemporary news reports, sitcoms, movies, and increasingly in popular literature, he opens himself up to the accusation that he is "boring", "impractical", "unengaging", and, what is maybe most damning, "out of touch", since he couldn't put flesh on the bones of daily living.
How, then, shall he preach? Not having a pulpit of my own (though having taught for nearly 8 years), I can say that the harder one seeks to know one's hearers - to know what distracts their concentration most easily, to anticipate their objections, to begin thinking and speaking in their categories and know how to translate back into one's own - the more willing such hearers will be to give one a hearing.
In addition to this, read widely, and when you find yourself begnning to use - consciously at first, and then without knowing it - new words or familiar ones with nuanced meanings, expect a few raised eyebrows and praise God that he's not left you in a linguistically retarded state. One of the most tragic things I see today is an adult who is thought of as some kind of "genius" or "intellectual" merely for checking out books from the library for leisure reading that have nothing at all to do with professionaly development, personal improvement, or some immediate problem in their life (or someone they know). One of the most life-depriving mental states we can inhabit is to stop inquiring. G.K. Chesterton commented that "there are no uninteresting subjects, only uninterested people." It is possible to be blind to what others find infinitely attractive and interesting (just as others find some of our own interests without interest); however, it is impossible for the God who created such realities as blue, gravity, infinity, and infant giggles to have allowed into his creation anything boring. Even spoons, when correctly employed, can entertain us for hours.
Finally, expect to draw upon what you've read in casual conversation. Not that you want to shut down others' opinions who may be easily intimidated just because you now know how the Communists came to power in China or why Americans tend to be more individualistic than do Europeans; that's not the point. The point is that Communism and individualism have causes and factors that led up to them and that explain why events, people, inventions, and movements turn out the way they do. And it behooves human beings to understand these things to the best of their abilities. No, most of us will never get the kind of recognition that so many today seek as they pursue such knowledge, but it may just help you become a more informed voter, a more patient friend, and more disciplined student, and more admirable human being.
BHT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)