New Glasses

"All I know is, I was blind, but now I see." ~ The blind man Jesus healed in John 9:25

"I once was lost but now am found; was blind, but now I see." ~ John Newton, from the hymn Amazing Grace

Recently, I had a conversation with some students about being “Christocentric.”  This term is about Jesus Christ being the “center” or focus of who we are and what we do.  

When asked about this term, I said something like this: It basically means that we cannot just pick and choose any Scripture we want and then interpret in any way we want without first looking through the lens of the character, actions, and love of Jesus. 

That seemed like a pretty basic definition to me, but apparently it caused quite a long string of discussions.  Part of me was glad that it was almost shocking for these students to hear!  However, I was a bit disappointed, too, since after all, we are Christians.  We are Christ-followers: those who put Jesus Christ as the center of what we are about.  That means – or should mean – that we cannot help but read or see or do anything without first comparing and contrasting how and what we are seeing and doing with the person and work of Jesus.  

Until we do that, then no matter how many Scriptures we know or how much good we try to do, we are not living the Christian life: the life of one who sees things through the lens of Jesus Christ.

There are many other glasses that I can look through.  There are many lenses competing for my attention: political lenses, entertainment lenses, media-drive lenses, and even religious lenses.  All of these are very real and can shape what we say and do.  However, until these lenses become secondary to the lens of Jesus Christ, then we will never quite see things in a “Christian” way.  That means we risk blurring what real Christianity is all about!

And we all know that there are – and have always been (see John 6, for instance) – too many blurry images of what Jesus and Christianity are all about.  These blurry images are, at best, misleading to those who are truly seeking the peace and love of God.  At worst, these blurs fall into the category that God seems to have the most negative view of: idolatry!  We make idols by presenting our blurred image of Jesus – these images that we come up with by looking at things through lenses other than the person and work of Jesus – to the world as the real thing. 

How do we get past this blurred vision and learn to see the real Jesus?

First, we should close re-examine what we know (or think we know) about Jesus by going to the source of Jesus’s life and work: the Gospels, the New Testament, and even the stories of God’s work in the Old Testament.  In addition, it would help for us to look closely at the words and actions of the Early Church – which includes the first few centuries of the Church – in regard to the person and work of Jesus Christ. 

Secondly, this close re-examination will lead to an “eye exam.”  In other words, it will cause us to ask serious questions about the lenses we are currently using.  Are we simply looking from the perspective of our own control?  Are we allowing sources other than the person and work of Jesus to determine how we interpret Scripture or respond to the issues of our day?  Are we substituting what we know of Jesus and His love with whatever our favorite politician, media outlet, or even religious leader has declared without first putting on the lenses of Jesus and His character? 

It is time for the Church, its participants, and leaders to have an eye exam.  The same Jesus who healed those born with physical blindness in the Gospels is longing to correct our spiritual blindness.  And then we will receive the great gift of seeing God for who He really is!

Authority: Whom Do I Permit to Be in Charge?

A Surprising Definition

In ethics courses I have taught since 1998, I always ask students what they first think of when they hear the word “authority.”  It is probably no surprise that the most frequent response I get is “power.”  Power and authority are often linked in our popular ways of thinking about being “in charge” or able to “get things done.” 

And it never ceases to surprise at least a few that in the classical study of ethics, “authority” has a slightly different definition.  Before I share that with them, though, I usually try and categorize their answers into types of authority.  For instance, when they use the example of a teacher or professor, I explain to them that this is an example of only one type of authority: it is a situational authority.  I tell them that if I ask them to write a paper during this term (which I do) that addresses a particular topic of ethical interest in article form, citing all their references properly, and summarizing their conclusions all within about 10 to 12 pages, most of them will do so.  This is because during this time in the course, they have paid money and signed up to participate in the course based upon the syllabus the professor puts together.  This gives a hint about the parameters of authority, but again it is limited.  How so? 

Well, I usually continue by saying that if I walk up to them a year from now on the street, when most of them will have their degrees in hand, and say to them: “Hey, I would like for you to go home, take out some research books and articles, and bring me a 10 to 12 page article, properly cited, on business ethics by next week,” the response would be (at best) laughter and even disdain!  In other words, they would not do it.  The authority that I was given during the quarter or semester they were in my ethics course will have expired.  It is limited.

Coercive=Limited?

Of course, we usually go on to discuss other types of authority, including power based types of authority (sometimes called “coercive authority”).  Coercive authority, I argue, is the most limited kind.  This evokes some looks of surprise, especially since many of their initial answers directly linked authority with power.   However, when we look at the most extreme kind of “coercive authority,” also called “torture”, they begin to see more clearly some key aspects of the concept of authority.  I will say more about this in my conclusion below. For now, I will give a simple, slightly technical, working definition of authority in ethics.

A Working Definition

The working formal definition of authority according to most ethicists goes something like this: An entity or action which influences or changes the behavior and/or attitude of a subject based upon the consent of the subject in a given context.  Look at that definition again (general though it is).  My hunch is that the part that sticks out the most to most people is the “consent of the subject” part.  That’s right!   Authority, technically speaking, is about consent: we grant authority!  We cannot always grant power, which is coercive force used to accomplish a particular end.  But the ability to influence or change behavior, which is what authority really is about, is given by permission.  This is why coercive power produces the weakest kind of authority.  By “weakest”, we mean the kind of influence that has the least long term impact or effect. 

Back to the Torture Example

Back to torture as extreme “coercive authority”: A torturer can almost always change behavior and even attitudes of his or her victims.  But these direct changes are almost always over a short period of time!  When the torturer is not torturing, and especially when the torturer is not immediately present, over time (usually a short period of time, according to studies done on victims), the attitudes and certainly the behaviors of the victim revert back to a pre-torture state.  For example, Viet Nam prisoners of war who were tortured into making a “confession of crime” immediately changed their actions and attitudes about this when they were brought home and released from the immediate influence of the torturers. 

The authority that the torturer exerted was short-term and had little effectiveness in the long run. 

Moving from the most extreme kind of coercive authority to other lesser coercive types of authority reveals to the students that there is a direct correlation between the long-term effectiveness of an authority.  It is what is called an inverse relationship.  That means that the more coercive the authority, the less long-term change in behavior and/or attitude the object of the authority produces.

He Came as a Servant

No wonder the Son of God, to whom all authority and power were given, did not come in coercive power, but rather in humility and service (see John 1 and Philippians 2, for instance).   And, no wonder Jesus was the most confrontational with those who sought to use their positions of power to coerce people into a legalistic relationship with God (see Matthew 25, for instance, and Jesus’ interaction with certain Pharisees of His day).  God desires a long-term relationship with us, because God loves us.  God’s approach to a relationship with us is rooted in His love for us, not in His power over us.

God’s power is indisputable in Scripture: God is called “Almighty,” “Sovereign”, and “King,” for example.  However, God’s power, demonstrated in the resurrection of Jesus, is displayed in Jesus not in a primarily coercive way, but in a loving and convincing manner: a “wooing” as some have called it.  Jesus was not helpless.   Nor did Jesus operate in fear.  Jesus did not shy away from confrontation either.  However, the reason so many were drawn to Jesus’ authority – in other words, they allowed Jesus to change their attitudes and behaviors – is that His was the long-lasting kind.  His authority is one that manifests itself in the deepest and purest love ever known.  And its effects can be everlasting, for any of us who grant Jesus the authority to change our actions and attitudes. 

Final Note

A final “extra” observation about this whole discussion of authority has to do with asking about who or what is our authority.  What do I allow to change my attitude and actions on a consistent basis?  If I say that Jesus is my “Lord” or authority, do my actions demonstrate this?  Do His words and His approach to things govern my own?  If so, then indeed He is.  If not, then something else – something certainly with less power – has become that entity to which I have granted authority.  Examining that question is always a worthwhile pursuit.