Home The Error of the Pharisees >>
June, 2006
Do you have the right to be you?
Posted by Charlie Trimm at 6/2/2006 2:44:00 PM (5 comments left)
I've been thinking recently about something that I wanted your input on. Do we have the need, or even the right, to be us? That is, because of who we are, do we need to act that way? Being American, I've always considered that we need to not put on a mask, but just be our true self at all times, and if people do not like it, then they need to change. But I'm starting to rethink this. Now, I'm not even sure that we have the privilege to do that as much as we think we can.

I started pondering what the Bible had to say about this topic, and I came up with two ideas. One was the incarnation: God came to humans when he took on human form. When God talked to humans, he used their language and their idioms. He was still God, but he presented himself to them as one of them. Second is Paul's thought that he became a Jew to the Jew and so on, because he was not focused on who he was, but on who he was working with. I'm sure that there are more thoughts, but this is off the top of my head.

The implications of this could be long-reaching. When we interact with people, how do we present ourselves? How do we dress around certain people? How do we act around people? I am not saying that we should become a chamelon, because there is certainly a balance needed. But I think that we often go too far in asserting who "we" are at the expense of others. But I am interested in any comments you might have.

Subscribe to comments for Do you have the right to be you?: (RSS)
Comment 1 by Brian:

The examples you cite have an evangelistic purpose in them, but your question seems to be a bit more general than that.

I would also suggest that we don't really have much option, but to be ourselves. Is “asserting who ‘we’ are” the same as demanding our own way?

Posted  6/5/2006 12:47:00 PM website 
Comment 2 by Sam:
Maybe a clarification...
I think I'm having a response similar to Brian's...maybe you could give some examples of what you mean.
 
Regarding the incarnation.  I might suggest that God spoke to us in God-language.  Here i am tapping in to the idea of general revelation.  I take general revelation to be much more broad than just the earth, sky and mountains.  I think God speaks in all creation, including the design of man.  Thus, I see a person able to control the creation at will (via miracles) as the ultimate expression of God-language.  Sure Jesus could have spoken modern english to them (and may have spoken KJV if you listen to some crazies), but that would have been not just bad form, but nonsense.
 
Regarding Paul.  One might say that Paul's "to the Jew, a Jew" approach was his personal tack.  I am not certain that we can take that statement and make it directive.  In the NT examples, he seems to have been unique in this approach (remember the novelty of James' declaration that they lay no further burden on the Gentiles than that they abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication).
 
Here are my initial thoughts, but I'd be glad to come back to this topic if you want to clarify a bit.
Posted  6/6/2006 12:53:00 PM 
Comment 3 by Brian:
Cult of Individuality
I may be taking this conversation off on a tangent, Charlie, but you seem to be seeking a Biblical corrective to a rampant emphasis on individuality.
I have wondered about the demotion that Jesus receives when someone makes him their personal savior. Or the line, “Jesus would have died for you even if you were the only person on earth.” By casting faith in such individualistic terms, we devalue the community of faith in favor of a one person/one God “all about me” relationship.
Posted  6/6/2006 2:44:00 PM 
Comment 4 by Charlie:

Here are some specifics

1. Dr. Wagner in his pastoral care class discussed how a new pastor should act in a new church. The pastor should take on the loves and thought processes of the church. He should become a fan of the local sports team and not a diehard fan of the team of his youth, put his kids in the local school system (even if it isn't the best), dress like the people, and think like the people (especially if they are a rural church and he is from the city).

2. A guy said that he sent an application in for a job. With this application, he sent a picture of himself dressed rather colorfully, not the usual type picture to get a job. He said that he wanted them to know what they were getting. Someone else echoed the thought, saying "You have to be you."

 

Posted  6/7/2006 3:03:00 PM 
Comment 5 by Brian:

Charlie,
I think that the first instance is awkward since it suggests that some ways of thinking are like clothes that you put off and on at will. If you are moving to a church far enough away to have a different sports team, you are moving to a different culture.
You can learn to be a fan of a different team, but learning to think like them? Thinking in noticably different ways is not something that you can really adopt. A pastor does need to try to connect with his congregation. He needs to understand and respect how they think. If, instead, he tries to change their culture, he will frustrate all involved.
Another flaw in this example is the assumption that the church doesn't develop leaders from within. We get our leaders from the seminary, the pastor-factory. 

Posted  6/14/2006 6:47:00 AM website 

Leave a comment:

Name:
Email (optional):
 
Website (optional):
 
Remember me
Comment Header (optional)