Loser’s Choice

One key to our future is the way we choose to deal with one another, and I emphasize the word choose.  Often, we prefer to ignore the fact that we choose to react or respond to others as we do.  I’ll use myself as an example.  The fact is, no one can make me angry; I must choose to respond in anger.  No one truly has the power to insult me, but I have unlimited capacity to choose to be insulted.  No one has the ability to offend me whom I have not given the power to do so.  I am not prisoner to my emotions or responses.  I have been saved from such base behavior by a faith that offers me a better way and the power of the Holy Spirit working within me to make me Christlike.  I reject the victim mentality that blames everyone else for making me feel bad.  To be a victim is to be a loser, and I refuse to make the loser’s choice.

This is the same place we find ourselves as a church.  So much of our current discourse and engagement is grounded in outrage, indignation, resentment, insult and derision — not a healthy place for unity, harmony, reconciliation and concord.  But the greatest danger we face is that we are refusing to take responsibility for the toxic and destructive behavior.  Instead, we blame others, claiming that “they” are the problem.  Well, “they” may not be behaving as we would have them, but “they” can’t wage war by themselves.  “They” are only effective to the extent that “we” are dysfunctional.  It has long been noted that those who are most confident in their beliefs are least likely to lash out or resort to emotional or physical violence to make their points.  Acting out is a form of immaturity.  All the name-calling, back-stabbing, gossip-based hate-mongering and posturing is not evidence of the strength of our convictions, but the weakness of our confidence.  When anger is the presenting symptom, the usual root cause is doubt, uncertainty or fear (NOT faith).

I have been told by some (and am sure I will hear from many more) that this is preposterous.  Righteous indignation is a justifiable response to wrong-headed, sin-saturated immorality posing as open-mindedness.  Calling people names is acceptable when the names fit.  We can’t idly sit back and let the b******s win.  Wrong.  Plain and simple.  Faith is not a competition to win.  The task of working out our individual and collective salvation with fear and trembling is not a no-holds-barred scrimmage.  Certainly, our Neanderthal forebears lived by the seat of their limbic pants, but we have evolved — unless of course you disbelieve in Neanderthals, evolution and the limbic-system.  But even if we disagree about psychology, biology, astronomy and geography as they relate to the Bible, what possible good is there in allowing our disagreement become a fight?  To what positive end will we arrive if we allow our discourse to be peppered with invective, insult and disrespect?  How can this possibly help us?

Disagreement is one of the best places for us to witness to the grace, love and peace of God that comes through relationship with Jesus Christ.  To treat one another with civility and respect is truly counter-cultural.  To maintain patience and calm in the face of conflict is a powerful testimony to the power of the Holy Spirit in our lives.  I have a hard time believing someone has the love of God in his or her heart when hateful and hurtful words flow so easily from their mouths.  Attacking those who disagree with us is not a sign of our conviction, but purely evidence of our spiritual retardation.  Spiritual maturity results in a grace-filled and loving response — no question.

Certainly, there are those who are wrong — those who have missed the point and are moving in the wrong direction.  Undoubtedly, there are those who, through ignorance or malice, wish to condemn and attack their opponents.  So what?  For those who feel the strength of their convictions, there is no problem.  No one who feels confident of their beliefs has any reason to turn to aggression in any of their responses.  Wisdom is vindicated by all her children.  When the offspring are evil and aggressive, the mom is not pure and without flaw.

So, what choice is available to us?  Perhaps we could be loving.  Maybe a bit kind and compassionate.  Patient?  Gentle?  Generous?  A source of peace or self-control?  Well, these are fruits of the Spirit.  Only those who think the Bible is a good guide for our behavior will find any kind of guidance here.  The rest?  Probably they will continue with the loser’s choice.  Glad we don’t have to choose what they do.

10 replies

  1. Feeling curmudgeonly today – I’m choosing to let it ride. Choice is tricky business not easily characterized. Single-side equations are suspect – “Spiritual maturity results in a grace-filled and loving response — no question.” Presuming being made in the image of “spiritual maturity” leads to wondering about hell and universal salvation and much more.

    Perhaps it is simply “choose for others as you would have them choose for you”? And if they could choose for me what I cannot yet choose for myself are they encouragers in seeing more in me than I can yet see or prophets who can see dross that needs that needs to be skimmed off to reveal a more useful material? There are times I need one more than the other and times when I can even choose to put myself in its presence. But, then, like today, . . . .

    Can’t quite put my finger on why this post as disquieting as I sense it. Is there a bit more you might say about those who are guided by equivalent fruits even if not gleaned from the Bible and a reported propensity for G*D to raise up losers?

  2. Barbara Wendland’s “Connections” just arrived with a theme of “A Hard Job that Requires a Choice”. It is an interesting take to hold alongside Dan’s current posting. Are these two reflections about choice something we need to choose between or do they help enlighten one another?

    If you are interested it can be viewed as a PDF at:

    Click to access 9-11Conn.pdf

  3. This is difficult. Some people can’t distinguish between “let’s argue in righteousness without name-calling and invective” and “let’s not argue.” I can sign on to the first one; I can’t sign on to the second.

    The moment people stop raising girls and teaching them that they are second-class citizens, I’ll shut up. And the moment people stop raising LGBT kids and teaching them that their God-given orientation is a shameful, sinful thing, then I’ll shut up. And the moment people stop raising racists, I’ll shut up.

    And until then, I won’t shut up. I’m not going to attack anybody, but I’m also not going to be quiet for the sake of keeping a false peace. No, calling people names is not right, and I hope I don’t do this. But at the same time, we need to affirm that these are God-called convictions, not whims.

    I think–just as an observer–that the UMC is going to be in turmoil until it splits. The most that can be hoped for is a graceful split, and that would be a blessing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s