Donald Miller's Blog, page 101

Saturday Morning Cereal: The Best Viral Videos We Found This Week

Thanks again for all of the votes last week. Dove won by a considerable margin.

Who will win this week? Watch the videos below and leave your vote in the comments!

Saturday Morning Cereal: The Best Viral Videos We Found This Week is a post from: Storyline Blog

In a World of High Pressure Religion, Does God Just Want Us to Love Our Neighbor?

I was riding on a crowded train during rush hour in 2010 when a little Somali girl, who couldn’t find a seat on the train, climbed into my lap and fell asleep.

While I was holding her, I started talking to her mom, who told me in broken English that they were refugees from Somalia. Her husband had left the family shortly after they arrived in the U.S., and now she was stranded here, raising five children by herself, without any income or language skills or job training.

Then the woman leaned her head against the window as tears welled up in her eyes. “It’s too much,” she said, shaking her head. “It’s too much.”

I sat there silently, holding the sleeping child while her exhausted, overwhelmed mother cried. And the minutes dragged on, I grew more and more uncomfortable.

*Photo by Mysi, Creative Commons

I didn’t have a clue how to help a refugee family. I didn’t have any strong opinions about how to fix the problems with our immigration system. And, if I was really honest, I avoided most people who talked about social justice and immigration reform because the terms felt overused and overwrought. They seemed to require a significant amount of information and energy, and I didn’t have either of those things.

Shortly before I met the Somali family, I had been diagnosed with breast cancer at age 27. After nearly dying of it, I had bought a one-way ticket from the East Coast to Portland, Oregon, landing in the new city with nothing but a suitcase of clothes and a broken heart.

Even now, as I held the sleeping Somali girl in my lap, I was still undergoing cancer treatments. I had no mental or emotional capacity to rescue a refugee family — most days I felt like I needed to be rescued myself.

God, you dropped this Somali family into the wrong person’s lap, I thought as the train travelled down the tracks.

And then I felt an overwhelming peace, almost as if God had whispered in my ear, Just do for this family what I’ve done for you.

God had pursued me — chased me across the country, in fact — and encountered me in my loneliest moment. So I asked the Somali woman for her address, and went to check on the family a few days later.

God had loved me when my bald head and mastectomy scars made me feel unlovable. So I began to spend more time with the Somali girls, loving them when their stained clothes and broken English made them feel unlovable.

God had shown me that He was Immanuel, the God who dwelled with me — not instantly changed or fixed me, but dwelled. So I began spending most evenings at the girls’ apartments, sitting with them in their dark, cold apartment because their mom was worried they’d run out of money for food if she spent too much money on utilities.

The more I loved the family, the more I began to see that the reason I used to dislike phrases like social justice and immigration reform was because it made the problems seem like massive, institutionalized, politicized systems. And I don’t have the interest, let alone the ability, to overhaul a system.

But when I dug through the rubble of the system, what I found underneath were people who were just like me. Girls who were scared and scarred and broken. Unlovables who wanted to be loved. Invisibles who wanted to be seen.

There’s a lot I can’t do in this world. But I can love God, and I can love my neighbor the way God loves me.

And maybe that’s enough.

In a World of High Pressure Religion, Does God Just Want Us to Love Our Neighbor? is a post from: Storyline Blog

Identity is at the Core of Most of Our Personal Problems. Here’s a Solution:

Who does God say we are?

That question came up last weekend when I was hanging out with a few really good buddies who are students at Western Washington University. We were wrestling with how our identities on this earth are at the root of so many of our problems and decided to go to the Bible to help us figure it out.

Who does God say we are?

That question came up again as I listened to a sermon by Pastor Jerry Dirmann of The Rock Church in Anaheim, Calif., last week. In the sermon, he said, “We can either let the world tell us who we are or let God tell us who we are.”

Well then, who does God say we are?

Identity seems to have been a theme in the last few weeks. It’s come up repeatedly in sermons I’ve been hearing, books I’ve been reading and conversations I’ve been having. Who, exactly, are we in Christ? I didn’t want to do what I seemed to do too far often when it came up — answer that question with little effort or thought. “My identity is in Christ,” I would say, with half of an exclamation point and half of a question mark at the end.

Enough with that ambiguity. Time to get detailed. What characteristics do we possess as men and women of God?

So it was a well-primed yet spontaneous decision at 7:15pm last Tuesday to sit down and write out traits of our identity in Jesus. As I started writing out those characteristics, Bible verses began coming to mind that perfectly aligned with each attribute. By 7:45, just 30 minutes later, our trusty 3-in-1 printer was churning out a perfectly formatted sheet containing 23 features of our identity as followers of Jesus. I couldn’t believe my eyes or heart as I stared at the page that screamed out realities of our identity, echoing Jesus’ truth into my soul.

You can download a PDF of these identity statements here.

*Photo by CPOA, Creative Commons

That question that had been ringing in sermons, in conversations and in my mind for days, months and years was answered so succinctly, so Biblically and so beautifully. The Holy Spirit did a mighty work in that half-hour last Tuesday night to shine bright, stunning light onto my — our — search for identity.

As I excitedly shared the document with friends, co-workers, family members, my YoungLife small group guys, Twitter followers and anyone else who would listen, I realized the truths on that page were hitting everyone else just as powerfully as they struck me. This was real, and I was definitely not alone in this seemingly spur-of-the-moment pursuit.

The question of identity is what we are all striving to answer before we reach the end of our time on Earth, regardless of what you believe, how many college degrees you have or where you fit on the corporate ladder. People search for the fulfillment of this longing in relationships, jobs, money, achievements, possessions and a million other things, but the cool thing is that Jesus has already answered the question — and done all the work — for us. We don’t have to do anything other than soak in His truths about who we are in Him. It’s as if the teacher has given us all the answers to the biggest test we’ll ever face.

So who does God say we are? Join me and many others in standing on these truths about our identity in Jesus. Post it at home and in your office. Pass it along to friends. Dwell on these verses of who you are. And when we come to know who we are as He says we are, we will become truly unshakeable.

We’d love for you to pass along this PDF to anybody you think it might encourage. Download it here.

Identity is at the Core of Most of Our Personal Problems. Here’s a Solution: is a post from: Storyline Blog

The Real Reason Theologians Fight May Have Little to do With Theology

Have you ever had a conversation with another Christian and felt the two of you had a completely different view of God? And have you ever wondered why? You’re reading the same Bible, after all, and supposedly interacting with the same God. How can one person have a rigid, black and white view of God while another sees more mystery and ambiguity? How can two intellectual powerhouses like Brian McLaren and John Piper have such different views of the same Biblical text?

Lately, I’m tempted to believe it’s because, while they’re both looking at the same Scriptures, they actually see something different. And the reason they see something different is mostly about brain chemistry.

New research reveals black and white thinkers (somebody like John Piper) may have less than average amounts of Norepinephrine, less than average amounts of Serotonin and excessive amounts of Dopamine in their brains. When I say less than average, I don’t mean to suggest inferiority. Some brains have more and some brains less of each of these chemicals, and there’s no “perfect combination.”

The specific chemical combination I just described causes the brain to see the world as a somewhat hostile place, and as such causes a person to divide people into a for and against dichotomy. When looking at a text, they look for right and wrong, true and untrue, and they don’t like ambiguity or mystery because they see vagueness as a threat. Because the world is a hostile place, they look for security in absolute answers.

Again, this is not to say this chemical combination means a person is an inferior thinker. It’s just that the combination of these three chemicals affects our personalities and makes us “who we are” in a sense. For certain, there are many realities that can be divided up into right and wrong, and there are certainly hostile people in the world, so a person with this chemical makeup may be, quite objectively, right about the reality they perceive.

Another kind of thinker who does not see the world in black and white, sees a given issue from multiple perspectives and is quite comfortable juggling multiple ideas without deciding which one is absolutely true (somebody like Brian McLaren) may have a very different chemical makeup. Serotonin is average, Norepinephrine is higher than average and Dopamine is low. This person is much more relaxed in their studies, does not see the world as a hostile place, does not associate their beliefs strongly with their egos and instead sees truth as outside themselves, as something they are discovering rather than something they already understand. They simply don’t need to explain everything. They are comfortable with five or ten possible explanations, and enjoy considering each of them. They may land, but they don’t have to.

One kind of thinker has learned, and the other kind of thinker is learning. And it’s all in their brain chemistry.

• • •

What is fascinating about this is the two sides will likely never “agree” because from their perspectives, they’re both right. It would be like one person wearing red-tinted lenses, arguing adamantly the sky was purple, while another person wore yellow-tinted lenses and argued the sky was green.

*Photo by epSos.de, Creative Commons

The sky is, of course, blue, but neither will concede because each is viewing the world through a chemical lens. They are, in fact, reporting exactly what they see.

This of course is no full explanation of how they see the world. Each also uses objective reasoning, and mostly objective reasoning. But that reasoning would be tainted by brain chemistry as well.

I believe if you switched somebody like John Piper’s brain chemistry with Brian McLaren’s, there would be a switch in the way they see the world, too.

And here’s what’s interesting about this. If your brain chemistry is low in Serotonin and Norepinephrine, you’re much less likely to agree with this article because it’s too ambiguous and doesn’t offer a person enough control. Those with a high need for control (who believe the world is hostile) have a low tolerance for ambiguity, and those with a low need for control (who believe the world is basically friendly) have a high tolerance for ambiguity. And the need for control is predicated upon our brain chemistry.

This all may sound far fetched but we already know brain chemistry affects the way we view the world. We are not objective computers built from the same batteries and wires. We are guided by a blob of tissue and chemicals that can be changed and altered, and with those changes come changes in perspective and personality. And even changes in the way we perceive truth.

So how do we then debate and come to agreement? Well, here’s where it gets a bit controversial, and I’m going to risk thinking out loud.

We don’t.

What I mean is, we don’t try to come to an agreement at all. John Piper is going to communicate his theological perspective to those who see the world the way he sees the world and Brian McLaren is going to do the same. There will likely always be tension between them, but each is having a positive impact.

I don’t expect black and white thinkers to buy my books by the case, for example. They just don’t see the world the way I do. It’s not that they’re wrong and I’m right, it’s that they are being true to the way they see faith. I am comfortable with ambiguity, they aren’t. And they’re honest and consistent to communicate exactly what they’re seeing, as am I. They don’t see the sky as green and shouldn’t pretend to.

• • •

Someday, I believe we each will take off our glasses and see things accurately. Scripture says here in this life we see through a window dimly. But someday we will see clearly.

Paul confusingly and frustratingly states that as believers we should agree. But he doesn’t go so far as to say which of the thousands of Christian denominations are right. Perhaps I’m reading too much into that to say we should actually just support each other as family members while continuing to see the world the way we see the world and translating it for those who are wired the way we are wired.

Or maybe the next time we encounter somebody we disagree with, the more appropriate question might be, “So, what color is the sky in your world?”

• • •

**The brain chemistry bit is taken from the theory of the Enneagram, a quite accurate account of 9 different major categories of personality. The theory has been around for a very long time, but they’ve added the brain chemistry bit more recently. I’m inferring in this blog that John Piper is an enneagram 8, while Brian McClaren is an enneagram 5. You can learn more about brain chemistry as it affects the 9 kinds of personality here.

** There are NOT only two combinations of brain chemistry, according to the theory. There would actually be nine major combinations and 18 approximate variables, but truthfully there are an infinite combination of those three major chemicals. The nine major combinations would then be “way points” in the variations, and as such predictors of approximate personality. In addition, Brian McClaren and John Piper should not be considered opposites. There are no opposites any more than red is the opposite of blue. There are only variations of brain chemistry and so variations of perspectives.

The Real Reason Theologians Fight May Have Little to do With Theology is a post from: Storyline Blog

Can Brain Chemistry Explain why Certain Theologians Disagree?

Have you ever had a conversation with another Christian and felt the two of you had a completely different view of God? And have you ever wondered why? You’re reading the same Bible, after all, and supposedly interacting with the same God. How can one person have a rigid, black and white view of God while another sees more mystery and ambiguity? How can two intellectual powerhouses like Brian McLaren and John Piper have such different views of the same Biblical text?

Lately, I’m tempted to believe it’s because, while they’re both looking at the same Scriptures, they actually see something different. And the reason they see something different is mostly about brain chemistry.

New research reveals black and white thinkers (somebody like John Piper) may have less than average amounts of Norepinephrine, less than average amounts of Serotonin and excessive amounts of Dopamine in their brains. When I say less than average, I don’t mean to suggest inefficiency. Some brains have more and some brains less of each of these chemicals, and there’s no “perfect combination.”

The specific chemical combination I just described causes the brain to see the world as a somewhat hostile place, and as such causes a person to divide people into a for and against dichotomy. When looking at a text, they look for right and wrong, true and untrue, and they don’t like ambiguity or mystery because they see vagueness as a threat. Because the world is a hostile place, they look for security in absolute answers.

Again, this is not to say this chemical combination means a person is an inferior thinker. It’s just that the combination of these three chemicals affects our personalities and makes us “who we are” in a sense. For certain, there are many realities that can be divided up into right and wrong, and there are certainly hostile people in the world, so a person with this chemical makeup may be, quite objectively, right about the reality they perceive.

Another kind of thinker who does not see the world in black and white, sees a given issue from multiple perspectives and is quite comfortable juggling multiple ideas without deciding which one is absolutely true (somebody like Brian McLaren) may have a very different chemical makeup. Serotonin is average, Norepinephrine is higher than average and Dopamine is low. This person is much more relaxed in their studies, does not see the world as a hostile place, does not associate their beliefs strongly with their egos and instead sees truth as outside themselves, as something they are discovering rather than something they already understand. They simply don’t need to explain everything. They are comfortable with five or ten possible explanations, and enjoy considering each of them. They may land, but they don’t have to.

One kind of thinker has learned, and the other kind of thinker is learning. And it’s all in their brain chemistry.

• • •

What is fascinating about this is the two sides will likely never “agree” because from their perspectives, they’re both right. It would be like one person wearing red-tinted lenses, arguing adamantly the sky was purple, while another person wore yellow-tinted lenses and argued the sky was green.

*Photo by epSos.de, Creative Commons

The sky is, of course, blue, but neither will concede because each is viewing the world through a chemical lens. They are, in fact, reporting exactly what they see.

This of course is no full explanation of how they see the world. Each also uses objective reasoning, and mostly objective reasoning. But that reasoning would be tainted by brain chemistry as well.

I believe if you switched somebody like John Piper’s brain chemistry with Brian McLaren’s, there would be a switch in the way they see the world, too.

And here’s what’s interesting about this. If your brain chemistry is low in Serotonin and Norepinephrine, you’re much less likely to agree with this article because it’s too ambiguous and doesn’t offer a person enough control. Those with a high need for control (who believe the world is hostile) have a low tolerance for ambiguity, and those with a low need for control (who believe the world is basically friendly) have a high tolerance for ambiguity. And the need for control is predicated upon our brain chemistry.

This all may sound far fetched but we already know brain chemistry affects the way we view the world. We are not objective computers built from the same batteries and wires. We are guided by a blob of tissue and chemicals that can be changed and altered, and with those changes come changes in perspective and personality. And even changes in the way we perceive truth.

So how do we then debate and come to agreement? Well, here’s where it gets a bit controversial, and I’m going to risk thinking out loud.

We don’t.

What I mean is, we don’t try to come to an agreement at all. John Piper is going to deliver theology to those who see the world the way he sees the world and Brian McLaren is going to do the same. Each will likely feel an tension between each other to some degree, but each is having an a positive impact. I don’t expect black and white thinkers to ever buy my books by the case, for example. They just don’t see the world the way I do. It’s not that they’re wrong and I’m right, it’s that they are being true to the way they see the world. And they’re honest and consistent to do so. They don’t see the sky as green and they shouldn’t pretend to.

• • •

Someday, I believe we each will take off our glasses and see things accurately. Scripture says here in this life we see through a window dimly. But someday we will see clearly.

Paul confusingly and frustratingly states that as believers we should agree. But he doesn’t go so far as to say which of the thousands of Christian denominations are right. Perhaps I’m reading too much into that to say we should actually just support each other as family members while continuing to see the world the way we see the world and translating it for those who are wired the way we are wired.

Or maybe the next time we encounter somebody we disagree with, the more appropriate question might be, “So, what color is the sky in your world?”

• • •

**The brain chemistry bit is taken from the theory of the Enneagram, a quite accurate account of 9 different major categories of personality. The theory has been around for a very long time, but they’ve added the brain chemistry bit more recently. I’m inferring in this blog that John Piper is an enneagram 9, while Brian McClaren is an enneagram 5. You can learn more about brain chemistry as it affects the 9 kinds of personality here.

** There are NOT only two combinations of brain chemistry, according to the theory. There would actually be nine major combinations and 18 approximate variables, but truthfully there are an infinite combination of those three major chemicals. The nine major combinations would then be “way points” in the variations, and as such predictors of approximate personality. In addition, Brian McClaren and John Piper should not be considered opposites. There are no opposites any more than red is the opposite of blue. There are only variations of brain chemistry and so variations of perspectives.

Can Brain Chemistry Explain why Certain Theologians Disagree? is a post from: Storyline Blog

We Model a Lot of Things for Our Kids. But Have we Taught Them How to Fail?

To celebrate my son Brent’s 16th birthday, my two boys and I signed up for the Tennessee Motorcycle Safety Course. It’s a two-day program designed for folks who’ve never ridden a cycle before. At the end of the second day, the prize is a motorcycle license.

Though we don’t have motorcycles, we dreamed of riding together on the Natchez Trace, a beautiful stretch of highway that runs from Nashville to Mississippi. No stop signs or traffic lights. Only beautiful scenery and gently winding roads.

Starting our day at the training facility with six other men, we began with the basics – this is the brake, this is the starter, this is the throttle, etc. Soon, we were riding around the large lot, dodging obstacles, leaning into curves, and changing gears. We had the greatest time together and by the day’s end, I was certain I would acquire the nickname “Easy Rider.”

The second morning, I aced the written test with a score of 100%, thank you very much. My sons scored lower than me, not that I would care about that. The rest of the day was filled with putting into practice what we’d learned and getting more comfortable with this two-wheeled beast of a machine.

At the end of day two, the teacher became solemn and said, “It’s time for the test” and he proceeded to lead us through a series of different challenges. He would show us what to do and one by one, we’d do them. He stood over to the side with his stopwatch and his clipboard, making marks on the paper and looking very serious. To say that the “fun” was sucked out of the group would be an understatement.

*Photo by KYNGPAO, Creative Commons

We each accomplished the assigned tasks, and then came the last requirement – to ride slowly in a figure eight pattern in a small space, staying within the lines and keeping your feet off the ground. Earlier in the day, we had practiced this and I was unable to do it.

One by one, the class members did the figure eight routine successfully. And then it was my turn. Thankfully, there were no videos of this, or it would have gone viral. I couldn’t do it. I’m not sure what happened, but my feet were on the ground most of the time, keeping the motorcycle from falling over and I spent more time outside of the lines than inside. More difficult than all of that was the fact that my sons were watching it all.

A few minutes later, the certificates were handed out and everyone got one but me. I failed the test and thus, the course. Within seconds, shame rushed in like water through a break in a dam, and memories of past failures came rushing in with it. The immediate celebration we were anticipating was tempered by my failing the test. As we went back to the car, I walked that fine line between “this was really humiliating” and “I’m so proud of you guys. You have a motorcycle license!”

On our ride home, we went back and forth between celebrating their achievement and being bummed out (my sons did a great job in the “You were robbed!” department.) And that dual conversation continued at the birthday dinner we shared.

Later than night, my youngest texted me from a friend’s house, “Dad, I’m so sorry about today. But thanks for teaching me how to fail. Love you, Brent.” That’s when the tears came.

I love to succeed and I want my sons to succeed as well. In soccer, school, and in various projects, I’ve always wanted them to win. If you think about it, there are a lot of books out there that encourage me in this line of thought. “Live your best life!” “Raise good kids” “You can be victorious.” and on and on and on. But there’s not much talk about losing, failure, and messing up – where frankly much of my life is lived.

In the midst of all this, I remembered a poster I saw on the wall of my son’s 5th grade class. It read:

“I’ve missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I’ve lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I’ve been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I’ve failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed.”

― Michael Jordan

• • •

I mess things up daily. I fail my friends, my wife, and my kids. I forget to put air in my tires and the tread wears down. I miss a payment and get a nasty call from the electric company. I got a letter last week from the homeowners association because violated a neighborhood rule regarding trashcans. The list goes on and on, and ranges from mild to serious. And until the motorcycle course where my failure was displayed in living color, I’d kept most of those kinds of things under wraps, deferring to my more successful moments.

I think I’m going to change my ways. People have plenty of models for success. Successful folks tend to give seminars, write books about how to get there, and they eventually end up on Oprah. I’m going to have more conversations about what I’ve not done right, ways I’ve messed up, where I’ve failed and how I’ve found my way through it.

Because that’s where God comes alongside me and says, “I love failures – people who can’t make it, folks who trip and fall, prodigal men and women who stumble toward me, hungry and dirty, having made a mess of things. Those are the people who need me – who need mercy, who need grace, who need my embrace because life is hard.”

And so, for the time being, you won’t see me riding into the sunset on a motorcycle with gleaming chrome mufflers, because six months ago, I failed a test. At the time, I thought that was a terrible thing. Instead, I believe I found a door to the kind of life I want to live.

We Model a Lot of Things for Our Kids. But Have we Taught Them How to Fail? is a post from: Storyline Blog

Confessions of a Loser: Teaching My Kids How to Fail

To celebrate my son Brent’s 16th birthday, my two boys and I signed up for the Tennessee Motorcycle Safety Course. It’s a two-day program designed for folks who’ve never ridden a cycle before. At the end of the second day, the prize is a motorcycle license.

Though we don’t have motorcycles, we dreamed of riding together on the Natchez Trace, a beautiful stretch of highway that runs from Nashville to Mississippi. No stop signs or traffic lights. Only beautiful scenery and gently winding roads.

Starting our day at the training facility with six other men, we began with the basics – this is the brake, this is the starter, this is the throttle, etc. Soon, we were riding around the large lot, dodging obstacles, leaning into curves, and changing gears. We had the greatest time together and by the day’s end, I was certain I would acquire the nickname “Easy Rider.”

The second morning, I aced the written test with a score of 100%, thank you very much. My sons scored lower than me, not that I would care about that. The rest of the day was filled with putting into practice what we’d learned and getting more comfortable with this two-wheeled beast of a machine.

At the end of day two, the teacher became solemn and said, “It’s time for the test” and he proceeded to lead us through a series of different challenges. He would show us what to do and one by one, we’d do them. He stood over to the side with his stopwatch and his clipboard, making marks on the paper and looking very serious. To say that the “fun” was sucked out of the group would be an understatement.

*Photo by KYNGPAO, Creative Commons

We each accomplished the assigned tasks, and then came the last requirement – to ride slowly in a figure eight pattern in a small space, staying within the lines and keeping your feet off the ground. Earlier in the day, we had practiced this and I was unable to do it.

One by one, the class members did the figure eight routine successfully. And then it was my turn. Thankfully, there were no videos of this, or it would have gone viral. I couldn’t do it. I’m not sure what happened, but my feet were on the ground most of the time, keeping the motorcycle from falling over and I spent more time outside of the lines than inside. More difficult than all of that was the fact that my sons were watching it all.

A few minutes later, the certificates were handed out and everyone got one but me. I failed the test and thus, the course. Within seconds, shame rushed in like water through a break in a dam, and memories of past failures came rushing in with it. The immediate celebration we were anticipating was tempered by my failing the test. As we went back to the car, I walked that fine line between “this was really humiliating” and “I’m so proud of you guys. You have a motorcycle license!”

On our ride home, we went back and forth between celebrating their achievement and being bummed out (my sons did a great job in the “You were robbed!” department.) And that dual conversation continued at the birthday dinner we shared.

Later than night, my youngest texted me from a friend’s house, “Dad, I’m so sorry about today. But thanks for teaching me how to fail. Love you, Brent.” That’s when the tears came.

I love to succeed and I want my sons to succeed as well. In soccer, school, and in various projects, I’ve always wanted them to win. If you think about it, there are a lot of books out there that encourage me in this line of thought. “Live your best life!” “Raise good kids” “You can be victorious.” and on and on and on. But there’s not much talk about losing, failure, and messing up – where frankly much of my life is lived.

In the midst of all this, I remembered a poster I saw on the wall of my son’s 5th grade class. It read:

“I’ve missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I’ve lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I’ve been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I’ve failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed.”

― Michael Jordan

• • •

I mess things up daily. I fail my friends, my wife, and my kids. I forget to put air in my tires and the tread wears down. I miss a payment and get a nasty call from the electric company. I got a letter last week from the homeowners association because violated a neighborhood rule regarding trashcans. The list goes on and on, and ranges from mild to serious. And until the motorcycle course where my failure was displayed in living color, I’d kept most of those kinds of things under wraps, deferring to my more successful moments.

I think I’m going to change my ways. People have plenty of models for success. Successful folks tend to give seminars, write books about how to get there, and they eventually end up on Oprah. I’m going to have more conversations about what I’ve not done right, ways I’ve messed up, where I’ve failed and how I’ve found my way through it.

Because that’s where God comes alongside me and says, “I love failures – people who can’t make it, folks who trip and fall, prodigal men and women who stumble toward me, hungry and dirty, having made a mess of things. Those are the people who need me – who need mercy, who need grace, who need my embrace because life is hard.”

And so, for the time being, you won’t see me riding into the sunset on a motorcycle with gleaming chrome mufflers, because six months ago, I failed a test. At the time, I thought that was a terrible thing. Instead, I believe I found a door to the kind of life I want to live.

Confessions of a Loser: Teaching My Kids How to Fail is a post from: Storyline Blog

Does the Pro-Life Movement Need a New Strategy?

I am pro-life. I believe abortion is a painful and dark reality in the world.

But I’m often reluctant to associate with the pro-life movement. And I don’t think I’m alone.

I remember, years ago, when I was in high school, sitting at a picnic table at a park near my home reading Martin Luther King’s Letters From a Birmingham Jail and being moved by the love Dr. King had for his oppressors. He was willing to cause tension, for sure, but he was also willing to die as a martyr. He was willing to die for those who he saw as lost in darkness.

The ability to love our enemies, and I mean deeply love our enemies, is of the most supernatural distinctives for those who follow Jesus. Sadly, as I’ve interacted with more than a few pro-life leaders, I’ve sensed no love for politicians who oppose their views. In fact, I’ve often wondered whether they hated Democrats more than they loved the unborn. And I’ve wondered, also, why they haven’t realized their inability to truly love, dialogue with and influence the opposition is the main reason they’ve made so little progress on this critical issue. What part of the directive to “love our enemies” is confusing?

I bring this up because of the trial currently taking place in Philadelphia, a case that could have dramatic impact on the conversation about abortion in our country.

An abortion provider named Kermit Gosnell is on trial for, without question, murder. Not only has he provided abortions, but he’s provided late abortions and illegal abortions. The facts of the case are tragic and disturbing. The media has been slow to cover the case for reasons we can only speculate about. Lately, though, my friend Kirsten Powers who worked in the Clinton administration and contributes to Fox News, USA Today, Newsweek and The Daily Beast has been championing greater coverage of the Gosnell trial, and her friends in the media are listening and responding.

It should be noted that it took a left-leaning, former operative in the Democratic Party to convince the media to begin covering the trial, the exact kind of person so many pro-life leaders have left on the other side of a burned bridge.

The Gosnell case has the same degree of importance as the tragedy in Newtown did to serve as a catalyst for a broad conversation about when life begins and what we are going to do as a country on the issue of abortion.

Still, as I read the coverage, I worry many on the pro-life side are going to mess this up. To continue the metaphor, most pro-life representatives have gone the way of Malcolm X, not Dr. King. I’ve had more than a few conversations with pro-life leaders whose tone is so condescending and arrogant that even I, who mostly agreed with them, had trouble offering public support because doing so might be confused with supporting their attitude toward those who disagree, an attitude that has proven time and time again as ineffective in instigating change. The pro-life movement has no Dr. King, and so it suffers to gain a viable voice.

I believe this is a mistake and I think the only way to take advantage of the opportunity this tragic case brings is to come back to a turn the other cheek, Christ-centered methodology of communication.

• • •

Perhaps this time we can:

1. Lead with Compassion: In personal convesations, it all starts with listening. The more we listen, the more we understand that those who are pro-choice are defending humanity, too. They just don’t believe that a fetus is a living being. That may seem absurd to some of my readers, but yelling at them will change nothing.

2. Lose the Self-Righteous Tone: There are people who have taken up the pro-life issue to get a personal feeling of self-righteousness. Tragically, this is an issue in which they can feel like a humanitarian without having to lift a finger. But the self-righteous tone must go. It only offends people and creates a stronger opposition.

3. We Cannot Demonize the Opposition: While certainly Kermit Gosnell can be categorized as a horrible human being for his crimes, to categorize every pro-choice politician or activist as such is unhelpful. Demonizing people who are pro-choice (slightly more than 50% of the population) will win nobody over and unless we win people over, we will not make progress on the issue. Listening to some pro-lifers talk, you’d think they believe 50% of Americans are hell-bent on killing children. This kind of tone makes more objective people want to disassociate from the movement and it’s the main reason the movement is having trouble gaining any kind of traction.

4. Acknowledge the Issue is Complicated: For the average pro-choice person, abortion is about women’s equality and women’s rights. While you and I may understand the issue from the perspective of the unborn, pro-choice people see the issue from the perspective of a woman’s right to choose. This isn’t an issue in which most people think about rationally. It becomes like a coin in that it’s nearly impossible to see both sides at the same time. Being able to compassionately articulate both sides, I believe, allows us to think more clearly on the issue and, in my opinion, also allows us to understand that supporting the life of the unborn child along with the mother is the only path toward a solution.

5. Begin Supporting a Culture of Life: If abortion were to be made illegal (which it likely never will be) pro-life supporters must be prepared to care for an enormous number of unwanted children. If your church isn’t regularly talking about adoption, it’s not a wholistic pro-life church. Not only this, but abortion rates decrease when the marginalized and poor are given access to healthcare. Many women simply can’t afford to bring a child into the world. If we want to change the tone of the pro-life movement, we must start speaking compassionately and often of the plight of women who find themselves in very difficult situations.

6. Admit for Some This is Really About Sex: For some in the religious community, this is really an argument about sex. They want people to wait for marriage until they have sex and they don’t want abortion to be able to be used as a form of contraception. These people need to leave the conversation, because they’re being passive aggressive in their rhetoric. People are going to have sex before marriage. We have no right to control them. If we want to influence them, we can present to culture the beauty of marriage. That’s a more effective way to influence culture anyway.

• • •

This is a tender issue and, as I’ve said, few people are able to think rationally about it. But we must. We must be able to communicate and understand every side of the issue and we must be able to do so with compassion.

The Gosnell case is tragic but it’s also an opportunity to engage in a public dialogue. It’s time for Christ-like leadership. Jesus died praying for the forgiveness of His enemies. I don’t think it’s too much of Him to ask that we simply have a conversation with ours.

Does the Pro-Life Movement Need a New Strategy? is a post from: Storyline Blog

Talking Points for the Pro-Life Movement

I am pro-life. I believe abortion is a painful and dark reality in the world.

But I’m often reluctant to associate with the pro-life movement. And I don’t think I’m alone.

I remember, years ago, when I was in high school, sitting at a picnic table at a park near my home reading Martin Luther King’s Letters From a Birmingham Jail and being moved by the love Dr. King had for his oppressors. He was willing to cause tension, for sure, but he was also willing to die as a martyr. He was willing to die for those who he saw as lost in darkness.

The ability to love our enemies, and I mean deeply love our enemies, is of the most supernatural distinctives for those who follow Jesus. Sadly, as I’ve interacted with more than a few pro-life leaders, I’ve sensed no love for politicians who oppose their views. In fact, I’ve often wondered whether they hated Democrats more than they loved the unborn. And I’ve wondered, also, why they haven’t realized their inability to truly love, dialogue with and influence the opposition is the main reason they’ve made so little progress on this critical issue. What part of our directive to “love our enemies” is confusing?

I bring this up because of the trail currently taking place in Philadelphia, a case that could have dramatic impact on the conversation about abortion in our country.

An abortion provider named Kermit Gosnell is on trial for, without question, murder. Not only has he provided abortions, but he’s provided late abortions and illegal abortions. The facts of the case are tragic and disturbing. The media has been slow to cover the case for reasons we can only speculate about. Lately, though, my friend Kirsten Powers who worked in the Clinton administration and contributes to Fox News, USA Today, Newsweek and The Daily Beast has been championing greater coverage of the Gosnell trial, and her friends in the media are listening and responding.

It should be noted that it took a left-leaning, female former operative in the Democratic Party to convince the media to begin covering the trial, the exact kind of person so many pro-life leaders have left on the other side of a burned bridge.

The Gosnell case has the same degree of importance as the tragedy in Newtown did to serve as a catalyst for a broad conversation about when life begins and what we are going to do as a country on the issue of abortion.

Still, as I read the coverage, I worry many on the pro-life side are going to mess this up. To continue the metaphor, most pro-life spokesmen have gone the way of Malcolm X, not Dr. King.

I believe this is a mistake and I think the only way to take advantage of the opportunity this tragic case brings is to come back to a turn the other cheek, Christ-centered methodology of communication.

• • •

Perhaps this time we can:

1. Lead with Compassion: In personal convesations, it all starts with listening. The more we listen, the more we understand that those who are pro-choice are defending humanity, too. They just don’t believe that a fetus is a living being. That may seem absurd to some of my readers, but yelling at them will change nothing.

2. Lose the Self-Righteous Tone: There are people who have taken up the pro-life issue to get a personal feeling of self-righteousness. Tragically, this is an issue in which they can feel like a humanitarian without having to lift a finger. But the self-righteous tone must go. It only offends people and creates a stronger opposition.

3. We Cannot Demonize the Opposition: While certainly Kermit Gosnell can be categorized as a horrible human being for his crimes, to categorize every pro-choice politician or activist as such is unhelpful. Demonizing people who are pro-choice (slightly more than 50% of the population) will win nobody over and unless we win people over, we will not make progress on the issue. Listening to some pro-lifers talk, you’d think they believe 50% of Americans are hell-bent on killing children. This kind of tone makes more objective people want to disassociate from the movement and it’s the main reason the movement is having trouble gaining any kind of traction.

4. Acknowledge the Issue is Complicated: For the average pro-choice person, abortion is about women’s equality and women’s rights. While you and I may understand the issue from the perspective of the unborn, pro-choice people see the issue from the perspective of a woman’s right to choose. This isn’t an issue in which most people think about rationally. It becomes like a coin in that it’s nearly impossible to see both sides at the same time. Being able to compassionately articulate both sides, I believe, allows us to think more clearly on the issue and, in my opinion, also allows us to understand that supporting the life of the unborn child along with the mother is the only path toward a solution.

5. Begin Supporting a Culture of Life: If abortion were to be made illegal (which it likely never will be) pro-life supporters must be prepared to care for an enormous number of unwanted children. If your church isn’t regularly talking about adoption, it’s not a wholistic pro-life church. Not only this, but abortion rates decrease when the marginalized and poor are given access to healthcare. Many women simply can’t afford to bring a child into the world. If we want to change the tone of the pro-life movement, we must start speaking compassionately and often of the plight of women who find themselves in very difficult situations.

6. Admit for Some This is Really About Sex: For some in the religious community, this is really an argument about sex. They want people to wait for marriage until they have sex and they don’t want abortion to be able to be used as a form of contraception. These people need to leave the conversation, because they’re being passive aggressive in their rhetoric. People are going to have sex before marriage. We have no right to control them. If we want to influence them, we can present to culture the beauty of marriage. That’s a more effective way to influence culture anyway.

• • •

This is a tender issue and, as I’ve said, few people are able to think rationally about it. But we must. We must be able to communicate and understand every side of the issue and we must be able to do so with compassion.

The Gosnell case is tragic but it’s also an opportunity to engage in a public dialogue. It’s time for Christ-like leadership. Jesus died praying for the forgiveness of His enemies. I don’t think it’s too much of Him to ask that we simply have a conversation with ours.

Talking Points for the Pro-Life Movement is a post from: Storyline Blog

Sunday Morning Sermon: Steve Jobs on Numbering Our Days

Storyline readers are incredibly diverse. A number of our readers do not attend a church with regularity. And yet we are a people who want to follow the real Christ, and contribute to His real community. As such, we offer our Sunday Morning Sermons. We’ve found brief interactions with a wide range of personalities and intend to feature one every Sunday. This is the Sunday morning sermon done, well, differently. After each feature, Don will chime in to share his opinions on the “sermon.”

Steve Jobs on numbering our days:

Don’s Thoughts:

While I’m not sure about the faith of Steve Jobs, I love that he stumbled upon a Biblical truth, and that is the wisdom of numbering our days. My hope is that he pondered in a way few of us can understand the beauty of his existence, of the existence of love, of the gift of his family and so much more in his final days. A Psalmist says, “Teach us to number our days, that we may gain a heart of wisdom,” and I hear that wisdom in Steve’s voice in this recording. Love this. Makes me want to forgive my enemies, love the marginalized, find my heart, do great work and seek God. All stuff Jesus instructed so long ago.

Sunday Morning Sermon: Steve Jobs on Numbering Our Days is a post from: Storyline Blog