Embracing the present with a major-league knuckleballer

Posted: May 24, 2012 by Beau Stanley in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , ,
1

About a year and a half ago, I finally declared a professional baseball allegiance to the Cleveland Indians. Long story. I had my reasons and I’m sticking to my guns.

Today, though, I want to tell you about why the New York Mets are on my radar, and why I was glad to hear that R. A. Dickey, their 37-year-old knuckleballer, shut down the Pirates on Tuesday.

I have become acquainted with Dickey’s story through his recently released memoir, Wherever I Wind Up: My Quest for Truth, Authenticity, and the Perfect Knuckleball. Dickey’s book is courageous, compelling, and inspiring, and I hope many of you will read it. Rarely does a book present such a unique combination of colorful personality, literary skill (he was an English literature major at Tennessee), athletic action, and insightful faith, all on the canvas of an extremely challenging life journey.

One concept in the book is really sticking with me, and I thought it might be worthy of your consideration as well.

The most intense chapter that I have read so far in Wherever I Wind Up (I’m only about two-thirds of the way through the memoir) recounts Dickey’s ill-advised attempt to swim across the Missouri River, which became a significant turning point for him, both personally and athletically. I’ll not ruin the story for you by sharing all the details, but I will offer this fascinating quote, which appears right at the close of the chapter (p. 214).

When I was weeping underwater in the big brown currents of the longest river in North America, I was sure my time was over. God, it turned out, had other ideas, giving me a chance to see if a man who had spent a lifetime running away from the present could possibly find a way to embrace it.

I must confess that this statement puzzled me at first. Having read about his difficult history, I suppose I wondered why Dickey would say that he had been running away from the present, rather than from the past. He clarifies later by writing that he began to live and pitch, for the first time, “fully immersed in each moment,” no longer “living on the edge of a self-created abyss . . . clinging to every stump or branch I can find as the river of live flows by, because I’m terrified of where it’s going” (p. 225).

Men, this is a perfect example of how transformative it is when someone actually heeds the words of Jesus, who said, “Do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble” (Matthew 6:34 ESV). How often has my casual familiarity with this simple statement eviscerated its incredible power? How often have I found myself unable to experience and enjoy the present—and thus run away from the present, as Dickey puts it—because I choose to ruminate on scars from the past and fears about the future? What would my life look like if I lived in full appreciation of my Father’s care for me?

Wherever I Wind Up is a gutsy book, and I’m thankful that R. A. Dickey wrote it. I’m thankful that God brought him up from the bottom and gave him a second chance on life. And I’m thankful, too, that the God who brought up R. A. Dickey from the bottom so thoroughly redeems the past and superintends the future that all of us can live in the present.

—Beau Stanley

Are denominations bad?

Posted: May 23, 2012 by Beau Stanley in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , ,
0

Welcome to our Wednesday “Ask Beau” post. The purpose of this weekly feature is to provide you, our readers, with biblical responses to questions you have about practical issues that you face.

As always, you may submit questions for future “Ask Beau” posts by contacting us at frontier@gracebrethren.org, or by leaving a comment on this post. 

On Monday a thought-provoking discussion arose in the Frontier men’s Bible study about denominations and whether or not their existence is a bad thing. At the time we were considering a chapter written by Os Guinness in which he argues that there is a corporate aspect to the Lord’s call, and that it is impossible to live out God’s call on our lives when we pursue that call strictly as individuals. The conversation moved to this question: if we are all to be about the Lord’s business, and to use our gifting to serve others rather than our own preferences, should there even be any denominations?

Let me offer my take on this question (which builds off of some of the comments offered on Monday), and we can continue the dialogue in the comment section.

As much as the idea of having one unified church might appeal to us, we should recognize that the writers of Scripture were comfortable with at least one criterion by which local churches distinguished themselves, namely geography. A look at Paul’s missionary journeys and pastoral correspondence (see especially Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5) shows that from the beginning, churches popped up in various locations in the ancient world. Each one, functioning under its own leadership (Philippians 1:1; Titus 1:5), surely adopted at least slightly different practices because they were operating in different cultural situations.

Note also, as one man mentioned in our Monday discussion, that it is possible for godly people to disagree strongly on issues of procedure or strategy—we see Paul and Barnabas parting company due to a disagreement about whether or not to take John Mark along on their second missionary journey (Acts 15:36–41). While Luke, the writer of Acts, does not endorse the division, he also does not indicate that either man was in error. It is not illegitimate to express respectful disagreement or disapproval.

Sometimes the term denomination can cloud the discussion as well. Often there is tremendous variation in practice and even doctrine within a particular denomination. New Testament scholar D. A. Carson underscores this point by writing that in his experience, “there is probably no more diversity in Protestantism than there is within the bowels of the Roman Catholic Church” (Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, p. 174; emphasis quoted).

Furthermore, because of human sin and even differences of perspective, denominations will continue to form and divisions will continue to occur. This is reality. Sometimes believers will find it necessary to separate from other believers because of legitimate doctrinal concerns or even heresy that has arisen.

With all of these factors in mind, I would argue that the existence of denominations and of variation between the practices of different church groups is not necessarily a bad thing, though some distinctions result directly or indirectly from human sinfulness. There’s one very important caveat, however.

We have spoken often on thefrontieratgrace.com about the various cultural forces that influence us. When we are aware of these forces, we can be aware also of tendencies against which to guard ourselves. Our American culture is fiercely individualistic and encourages a consumer mindset. We relish personal choice, freedom, and the ability to determine our own path for life. Is it any surprise, then, that Americans are particularly apt to struggle to deny our personal preferences, to submit to leadership, and to build one another up (Luke 9:24; 1 Corinthians 12:14-27; Philippians 2:1-4; Hebrews 13:17), and that we sometimes even “church hop,” looking for a church that has all the programs, emphases, and people that we find to be (to quote Goldilocks) “just right”?

I am not immune to this. Some years ago I left a church because of various reasons that I now question. Yes, I did not agree with everything going on at the church. In retrospect I wonder, though, if the justifications I offered for leaving weren’t a little too much about, well, me.

In a culture as individualistic as ours, pushing ourselves to stick it out with our churches and pushing back against our personal preferences is sometimes uncomfortable, but it is important. After all, church is ultimately about the Caller, not about the called.

—Beau Stanley

Leadership lessons from the Eurozone

Posted: May 21, 2012 by Beau Stanley in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , ,
2

It has been interesting to follow some of the news reports concerning the European financial crisis and the various strategies for solving it. Greece’s economy is in acute distress, and many other European countries are on very unstable economic footing. The Germans, who are doing somewhat better than their neighbors, have become a lightning rod in the debates about fiscal policy.

Germany continues to maintain that economic austerity is the best way forward for the European Union, but reaction to restrained spending and cutbacks has been negative lately. Some have even cited this negative reaction as an indication that the EU should abandon its attempts at economic tough love and instead promote growth through increased spending.

These commentators have missed, or at least minimized, a critical principle of leadership: When people react negatively to a leader’s initiative, that indicates that the people are uncomfortable, but it does not necessarily indicate that the leader has erred.

Think what you will about macroeconomic policy, but don’t tell me that a leader who makes cuts must have taken a misstep just because people get hacked off at him or her. I would argue, in fact, that negative reaction to a leader’s direction is often a very good sign, because it can indicate that the leader has made the sort of tough changes that are necessary in a difficult situation. We don’t hold leaders to be great because they tweaked things and went along with the crowd. That’s not leadership; that’s followership.

Christlike leaders don’t go on a witch hunt looking for opportunities to make people angry, but they do recognize that leading people toward a sometimes unpopular person (Jesus) will require sometimes unpopular decisions.

—Beau Stanley

Oops!

Posted: May 17, 2012 by Beau Stanley in Uncategorized
0

As part of our continuing effort to demonstrate that we are not perfect, I made a mistake.

The post that we published this morning (“Don’t Jump!”) should have originally borne the name of its author, Dan Hermiz. We have corrected the mistake. Dan is on staff at Grace Polaris, and he will be contributing to the blog going forward. Thanks for your understanding, and if you liked the post, the credit goes to Dan!

–Beau Stanley

Don’t jump!

Posted: May 17, 2012 by Beau Stanley in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
1

It’s a familiar scene. Person A explains that the reason for a particular behavior is that “everyone else is doing it” (or so it seems). Person B, believing such behavior to be foolish or naive, responds with the unassailable retort, “Well if everyone jumped off a cliff, would you do that too?” Apparently winning debates is just that easy.

But the truth emerges easily here: just because all or most people are saying it, doing it, or otherwise advancing it, that doesn’t mean that “it” is right. No amount of sincerity, kindness, and/or altruism that might attend a particular consensus can make something true when it is false. For a society that largely considers “sincerity” to be a synonym of “honesty” (I confirmed this with the thesaurus on my word processor), that can be difficult to swallow. You can in fact be sincerely wrong.

So today I get to stand in for person B. Who might be standing in for person A? Well, the entertainment industry for one. I submit to you the conversation from just about any medical drama (Scrubs, House, Grey’s Anatomy, etc.) that goes something like this:

Sick Patient: I guess all we can do is pray.

Doctor: What good is that? Fantasies don’t heal people. I heal people.

Sick Patient: Well, science and medicine can’t do everything. You don’t need science if the good Lord is good enough to give you faith.

Doctor: I don’t have faith, I have facts.

Apparently faith and facts have nothing to do with each other, right?

If you’re paying attention, you’ll see this dualism all over the place. Something can be known or believed—but never both. It can be religiously true or scientifically true—but not both. It can be personal or it can be universal—but you’d better not push your “personal” values on me. You might think abortion is wrong for you because you think it’s taking the life of an innocent human being, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t be allowed to do it.  Do you see the dangerous implications of this kind of thinking?

Yet so many Christians have bought into it. “It doesn’t matter what science says; you just have to take the leap of faith,” one might say. I recently read an article about a new archaeological find that may provide significant corroborating evidence for the biblical account of David (“may” being the key word). What struck me when I read the article online, however, were some of the comments made by believers, essentially arguing that it was irrelevant because “archaeology is about science and religion is about faith.”

Again I can’t help but think—why do people accept the idea that science and faith have to be so sharply separated? I thought the Bible commands us to “love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength” (Mark 12:30, emphasis added). Can we really love God with all of our mind while simultaneously disparaging its role in the life of the believer? And we mustn’t forget what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:14: “And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain” (ESV). Think of that. If Christ didn’t in fact rise from the dead, no amount of faith, no leap of faith, can do anything to change that. For that matter, it can’t save us either, for ultimately it isn’t faith itself that saves; it’s the object of our faith that really counts.

So I ask again: If everyone else leaped off a cliff, would you do it too?

Just don’t forget to think before you jump. It’s a thrill when there’s someone there to catch you. But if not, well, . . . not so much.

—Dan Hermiz

Does God help the unrighteous?

Posted: May 16, 2012 by Beau Stanley in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , ,
1

Welcome to our Wednesday “Ask Beau” post. The purpose of this weekly feature is to provide you, our readers, with biblical responses to questions you have about practical issues that you face.

As always, you may submit questions for future “Ask Beau” posts by contacting us at frontier@gracebrethren.org, or by leaving a comment on this post.

This week’s Ask Beau question came via email back at the beginning of May. The question is somewhat complex, but I’ve chosen to summarize it as, “Does God help the unrighteous?” The person who sent the email wondered why it appears that “God honors Samson in spite of his arrogance and sin and even helps him in his killings,” and more broadly wondered if God would help people who land in predicaments brought on by their own sin. He wondered if that might lead people to be nonchalant about doing God’s will.

First we must recognize that God is a God of grace. While the Bible affirms the concept of personal responsibility, it also indicates that God helps those who cannot help themselves (Psalm 146:9; Ezekiel 16:1–14), and is merciful toward those who do not deserve mercy (Exodus 34:6-7; 2 Samuel 24:14; Romans 11:32; 1 Timothy 1:15-16). The prime example of God’s grace was the sacrifice of His Son, made on behalf of helpless sinners who have willfully gone astray (Isaiah 53:6; Romans 5:6–8). In light of this, it is not all that surprising that God bails people out, including Samson. Thank God that when we are faithless, He remains faithful (2 Timothy 2:13).

Those familiar with the Samson narrative (Judges 13–16) will recognize the broader issue that our emailer raises, though. It’s not just that God seems to bless Samson even though he has messed up. God empowers Samson for actions in which Samson seems to have at least questionable motives (Judges 14:19; 15:1–20). We can see that Samson’s actions against the Philistines subdued them and supported Israel’s autonomy. Would God ever use someone with sinful motives to accomplish His plan?

A number of biblical passages answer in the affirmative. The book of Habakkuk records God’s prophetic promise that He will use the Babylonians to judge the people of Israel. However, God makes clear that He will judge the Babylonians for their unrighteous actions (see particularly Habakkuk 2:5–8). In Acts 2:23, Peter tells us that Jesus was crucified according to the plan of God, and yet that those who crucified Christ did so wickedly and needed to repent (see 2:38). Other texts affirm the intersection of sin and God’s plan. God is sovereign, and though He does not sin or tempt people to sin (James 1:13; John 1:5), He is able to superintend the world in such a way that both the righteous and sinful actions of humans bring about what He has ordained will take place (see Ephesians 1:11). Thus, not even our overtly sinful actions can sidetrack us from the plan of God for our lives.

Should this lead people to be nonchalant about righteous living? I don’t think it should. Paul didn’t think so either (see Romans 6). Those who recognize the sovereignty and grace of God should also recognize that, as Earl Radmacher put it, sin doesn’t pay. Sin carries earthly and eternal consequences with it (see the book of Proverbs as well as Romans 14:10–12; 1 Corinthians 3:11–15; 2 Corinthians 5:10). And while God extends grace and remains faithful even when we are faithless, a proper appreciation of God’s grace leads us not to licentiousness but to holy liberty.

Your turn. What are your thoughts on this question?

—Beau Stanley

Tim Tebow and running to win

Posted: May 14, 2012 by Beau Stanley in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , ,
2

As if he hadn’t accomplished enough already, not so long ago Tim Tebow published his first book.

On Saturday I finished the 2011 memoir, Through My Eyes. It’s noteworthy that the book is quite compelling without even touching on the Tebowmania of the Denver Broncos’ 2011 season. With some nostalgia I thought back to my own experience of many of the events that Tebow recounts from his own perspective—except for when reading his thankfully brief discussion of the early 2007 Buckeye debacle in the desert. By any measure, Tebow has had an extraordinary life already.

I was surely thankful for Tebow’s direct and heartfelt Christian witness throughout the book, but what may have struck me even more was his competitive spirit and passion.  Since I am an intense person myself, Tebow’s book pushed me to consider that God may not want to quell my passion at all, but to redirect it for His glory. The book even made me think about what it means to “win” in the Christian life.

Life does not pit most of us against a foe in a three-point stance, and there is no scoreboard on which we can see our level of faithfulness. This doesn’t mean that there is no foe (see 1 Peter 5:8), nor does it mean that nobody is keeping score (see 2 Corinthians 5:10). In fact, Paul is not ashamed to refer to the Christian life as a race that is hard to win:

Do you not know that all the runners in a stadium compete, but only one receives the prize? So run to win. Each competitor must exercise self-control in everything. They do it to receive a perishable crown, but we an imperishable one. So I do not run uncertainly or box like one who hits only air. Instead I subdue my body and make it my slave, so that after preaching to others I myself will not be disqualified (1 Corinthians 9:24–27 NET).

There is reward in store for the faithful, and we can only attain this reward if we are willing to undergo hardship. This is why athletes undergo strict training. If we are unwilling to dedicate ourselves to the Lord and embrace the often painful preparation that it takes to become spiritually strong, then we cannot expect to perform well.

Are you running to win?

—Beau Stanley

Older Entries