The real cost of the win-at-all-costs mentality

Posted on September 21, 2012 Written by Mark McIntyre Leave a Comment

We like winners

In American society, we like people and teams who win. We like those who come out on top. No-one wants to come in second. This is why we have the saying, “second place is first loser.”

In no sport is this truer than in competitive cycling. This is highlighted by the recent controversy over doping allegations against Lance Armstrong. In a recent World Magazine article entitled Lancing Blow, ESPN columnist Rick Reilly is quoted as saying that Lance “cheated in a sport where cheating is as common as eating.” The implication is that Lance had to cheat (if he did) just to keep the playing field level and that it is no big deal. Yet, as the World Magazine article shows, this mentality took its toll on Lance’s personal life, regardless of whether he doped or not.

Other sports have had their cheating controversies as well. Performance enhancing drugs, bounty programs and using electronic means of stealing the other teams signals are just a few ways that teams have tried to get an edge on their competitors. We often turn a blind eye to this behavior because we want our team to win. We like those who focus on winning.

The dark side

Yet this win-at-all-costs mentality has a dark side to it. Large corporations such as Enron were propelled to prominence through this mentality only to come crashing down when the extent of their deception became known. The result was that not only did the leaders of the company suffer, employees lost jobs and investors lost $11 Billion as Enron’s stock crashed down.

A point of reference

The win at all costs mentality is typical of a society that has lost its point of reference. Through all the prophetic books the leaders of Israel are called to account for having “false balances” (Amos 8:5 ESV) and pursuing “dishonest gain” (Ezekiel 22:27). Israel lost sight of the command to love God (Deuteronomy 6:5) and as a result, the law of God was neglected.

In America we are following the same path. We rebel against the Judeo-Christian ethic and have not replaced it with anything sufficient to deter cheating and the me-first, win-at-all-costs mentality. We send future executives to Ivy League schools where they are taught that there is no absolute moral truth and then we throw them in jail after they put this philosophy into practice in the board room.

The only hope

The only hope is that when things get so bad, when people realize that the alternatives to a Biblical ethic are morally bankrupt, then we will be ripe for revival. But in our arrogance and pride we continue to choose our own way. We continue going down the tunnel of self rule.

The problem is that even though the tunnel ends in a rock wall, we are pressing the accelerator harder.

Defending God’s honor? A response to the Islamic riots

Posted on September 19, 2012 Written by Mark McIntyre 3 Comments

Riots for honor?

In a blog post in response to the riots in the Islamic world, Tom Gilson asks the question, “what good is there in defending God’s honor?” In that post, Mr. Gilson highlights some differences between Islam and Christianity with the caveat that he has limited understanding of Islam.

As one who is also of limited knowledge of the Muslim faith, Tom’s article triggered some thoughts in me on how to respond to the rioting.

Take up your cross

Jesus tells us in the Gospels that those who seek to follow Christ are to take up our crosses. Luke 9:23 adds that this cross bearing is to be repeated daily. We are to embrace a symbol of humiliation. The result should be humility in us. We share the same tendency to pride and sin as the rest of humanity. It is only through the work of Jesus on the Cross that we can be other than what we were.

Go the second mile

Jesus also tells us that when asked to go a mile, we are to go two (Matthew 5:41). When we are slapped, we are to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39). To the one who demands our shirt, we should also give our coat (Matthew 5:40). Instead of defending our honor, we are called to surrender it for the sake of our relationship with God.

The founder of Christianity then went on to demonstrate how we are to do this by surrendering his own life on our behalf. He did not defend his own honor, but willingly embraced the shame and disgrace that should have been ours. He subjected his glory to the shame of our sin.

Anger doesn’t help

When faced with disgrace or a loss of honor, our natural response it one of anger and retaliation. Religious people of all stripes and colors, be they Atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians or Marxists struggle with putting self above others. Some of these creeds actively teach humility, others do not. The actions of the rioters could be used as evidence that Islam falls into the latter category.

The point for Christians is that we are to respond in love, no matter how difficult it may be to do so. As Tom tells us in his post, Christians have wrongly tried to defend God’s honor and have made things worse as a result.

This is not a call to pacifism. Jesus actively resisted evil (remember him overturning the tables in the Temple courts?). Yet, when we see acts of senseless violence, the danger is to respond in pride and the wrong sort of self dignity. These will push us toward responding in unwarranted (but understandable) anger. Our response, if any, is to be measured against our call to love.

Jesus informed us that his teaching would bring a sword among us (Matthew 10:34) but his gave us no indication that it should be our hand that wields it.

You have heard . . . but I say – It is all about the heart

Posted on September 13, 2012 Written by Mark McIntyre Leave a Comment

#17 in the Sermon on the Mount Series

Jesus the Radical

For those of us who have grown up on the church, it may be difficult to grasp how radical Jesus was in his day. One definition of the adjective radical is:

thoroughgoing or extreme, especially as regards change from accepted or traditional forms: a radical change in the policy of a company. (dictionary.com)

Jesus sought to bring a change to the way that his hearers understood Scripture and put it into practice.

Six times in the fifth chapter of Matthew Jesus identifies where his hearers have a deficient understanding of Scripture (Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 33-34, 38-39, 43-44). He uses the contrasting language of “you have heard . . . but I say to you” to introduce specific points of where the religious leaders of the day missed the intent of Scripture.

Jesus sets himself up as a higher authority

The first way that Jesus is radical is that he sets himself up as an authority higher than any the hearers have known. Here is a man that is putting himself above all the teachers of the day and above all that had gone before.

If Jesus is just a man like every other man, this would be an act of supreme hubris. Yet, as God in the flesh, he has the authority and the right to stand in judgment of the teachers of the law.

Jesus indicates we need a change of perspective

The second way Jesus is radical is the extent to which he applies Scripture. When you look at these six contrasts, the error is not that the teachers misunderstood the texts. The error lies in their not going deep enough in their understanding. The teachers focused on behavior and Jesus focuses on the heart.

There is something in man that wants to have rules so that he can judge his performance. People typically feel as though they are pretty good and generally live up to the standard they have set for themselves. Even the most strident nonconformist displays this. The nonconformist judges himself by his nonconformity to others’ rules. We judge ourselves by our behavior, our outward acts.

Jesus tells us that we are correct in controlling the outward acts, but this type of self mastery is not sufficient to claim obedience to Scripture. To really obey requires that we peel back the skin and get below the surface to motivations and attitudes. In these six contrasts, Jesus tells us:

It is not enough to keep from murder, we must also keep from hatred
It is not enough to keep from adultery, we must control lust
It is not enough to follow the correct procedure for divorce, we must understand that divorce is only to happen when a partner has been unfaithful
It is not enough to keep vows, we must live our lives so that our word can be trusted
It is not enough that we limit our revenge to an eye for an eye, we must live lives of sacrifice for others
It is not enough to love those who love us, we must also love our enemies

Jesus shows us that from God’s perspective, rule keeping is not enough. We must get behind the behavior to the motivation for the behavior. Jesus indicates that it is our hearts that God is after, not unwilling obedience.

It is all about the heart

Two observations:

If we make rules for ourselves or others, they need to be in keeping with a correct understanding of Scripture. There is nothing wrong with correctly condemning behavior that Scripture condemns or promoting behavior that Scripture promotes.
The rules should be used as barometers to show us how well tuned our hearts are to God. If we are giving grudging obedience then we have work to be done to identify the source of the grudge and deal with it.

But in the end, it is all about the heart.

On hypocrisy in the church

Posted on September 7, 2012 Written by Mark McIntyre 6 Comments

The Charge of hypocrisy

One common criticism of the church is that it is full of hypocrites, people who say one thing and do another. The problem with countering this criticism is that it is true. If we are honest, we will have to admit that none of us lives up to our own standard of behavior, let alone the standard set before us in Scripture. We all practice some level of hypocrisy in that there is a gap between what we know to be right behavior and how we actually live. I call this the belief gap.

The question is not whether there is a gap between belief and practice, the important question is whether members of the church are actively seeking God for the purpose of closing that gap.

The church is not alone

I feel the need to point out that the church does not have a monopoly on hypocrisy. In every sphere of human activity a higher standard of behavior is held than is lived. The gap between stated belief and actual practice is no less a problem outside the church than in it. Hypocrisy seems to be a universal problem.

The point of this post is not to excuse hypocrisy in the church, it is right to condemn it. The point is that we should evaluate a system on how effective it is in narrowing the belief gap.

The response

One way of narrowing the gap is to reduce the standard. If we have lower expectations, if we reduce the standard to the lowest common denominator, then perhaps the belief gap will be closed.

In western society, we have lowered our standards for what is considered decent and respectable. A short stint at channel surfing in the evening will produce ample evidence of the lowering of standards. It may be accurate to say the belief gap has been narrowed by this method, but are we willing to say that individuals and society are better off with the lower standard?

The other way to go about closing the gap is to seek help from outside. This is the Christian way. We seek the help of God to be better tomorrow than we are today. As John Newton so nicely puts it

“I am not what I ought to be, I am not what I want to be, I am not what I hope to be in another world; but still I am not what I once used to be, and by the grace of God I am what I am”

Jude identifies Jesus as the one who is able to close the belief gap by growing us closer to the standard. Jude writes:

“Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.” (Jude 24–25, NASB)

If we, as Christians, are right about who Jesus is and if we stand in relationship to him, we have the hope of one day standing in his presence as blameless. Then, and only then, will the belief gap be finally closed.

Amen!