Glenn Lucke, Fitting In vs Being Despised

I am often baffled by the willingness of some of grad student believers to bend and blur their beliefs and practices in order to fit in. In countless scenarios, I’ve listened while formerly evangelical grad students engaged mightily in what sociologist Erving Goffman termed “impression management.” (See his Presentation of Self In Everyday Life.)

A part, but just a small part, of this pertains to the evangelical label. However, few of the specific ‘post-evangelical’ sophisticates that I’ve personally met call themselves “post-evangelical” because of the difficulties in determining the concept of evangelical. Probing conversation usually reveals that it’s a nervousness about being excluded in the academic environment in which the enculturated dispositions are fairly hostile to evangelicals.

More important than the label is the  desire to adjust, bend, distort, and blur beliefs and practices in substantive ways, i.e. about matters of historic orthodoxy. Again, these friends and acquaintances seek to signal to the Powers that, “I'm in the club. I’m not radioactive. I’m not like those freaks.” Never mind that sometimes ‘those freaks’ are moms and dads, brothers and sisters, pastors and college buddies. More bizarrely, those freaks are sometimes people in the sophisticate’s current church, even small group.

Granted, some of these sophisticates have abandoned evangelical churches for the grey havens of mainline respectability, and still others have abandoned the Church outright. Also, I am not talking about grad student believers who, in working out their salvation in fear and trembling, are genuinely wrestling with where they stand on various issues. Most believers I talk to are like me in having episodes of doubt.

I’m talking about those who hedge in public, or at least in academic settings, so they can fit in. They have two identities: one, with their families and church friends, and another for academic settings. The maintenance of multiple identities strikes me as a lack of integrity.

 I have this same problem with integrity. I realize that every time I sin I am failing to embody my espoused ideals. Also, at every moment of sin I am doing what I want to do…no one holds a gun to my head compelling me to sin. My failure to live up to espoused ideals shows me to be a hypocrite and hypocrisy seems to be antithetical to oneness, wholeness…integrity.

 The goal is to be one person everywhere, including some of those precincts of everywhere in which an historically orthodox person doesn’t fit in. I ask why sophisticate post-evangelicals elide their faith and you can guess the responses:

-my career

-respect

-fear of rejection

-so I can make a contribution that would otherwise be excluded

-to make the case that we’re not all like (fill in the blank with an evangelical leader)

-so I can feed my family

I think, “Why do we care so much about fitting in? What’s wrong with you and me that we can’t tolerate being despised? What’s so awful about being different, about being excluded? Why do we have this voracious commitment to ourselves above all else?”

Part of the good news of the Kingdom is that we’ll suffer for the Name. Remember, Jesus endured the Cross for the joy set before Him. Paul craved sharing in the sufferings of Christ and repeatedly urged his letter readers to share and glory in his and their sufferings. It’s not that these grad student experts in impression management think they only want the benefits of the good news. Rather, they don’t believe that one of the benefits of the good news is being freed from the storyline of worldly respect.

He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Isaiah 53:3 

 

© 2006, Glenn Lucke.

 

Comments

[Vicky]

Glenn, this is a vital issue and I think it connects to the state of a person's conversion. In my experience, I recall my extreme reluctance to witness to my identity as a Christian, and in fact to other aspects of who I am, during the time before my fall from grace and eventual retrieval via God's love. The nature of metanoia might be (I speculate, based on some reading) that it's a growth enterprise, full of falls and ascents. The power of witness is also odd in this respect: a person can be used by God as witness without knowing or trying, and that thought helps me as I struggle amid what you once termed the scrum of daily life. The person who helped with my retrieval, for instance, was in a state of confusion and yet her witness was by God's grace powerful enough to help me. So I pray that, despite my fear and confusion in witness at times, I can be used by grace, somehow.

I hope to read more about this in your next book, perhaps, and on this blog, if you have more thinking to share--

Vicky

[Glenn]

Vicky,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. As you say, God in His magnificent grace can and does use us in our frailties and failings. That is a beautiful thing about Him, and your reminder draws me to thank and praise Him.

A question comes to mind as I think about your reply. I imagined us being able to converse in person and how the conversation *might* go. So in this comment I'm skipping ahead to a point in this imagined conversation. I'm not asking the following questions as though you don't believe in these things, but rather wanting to dialogue about them. Also, because I'm about to ask several questions in a row, it will probably *feel* like staccato bursts of interrogation. I don't mean it that way..merely a list of questions I'd like to discuss with you in an easy, unfolding conversation.

The Q's:

What do you make of the ethical imperatives of the gospel?
What do you make of biblical shoulds and oughts? What is the place of laying out imperatives?
What is the place for church discipline?
What is the place for criticism?

Having put the questions, may I also hasten to say: grace, grace, we all need grace every moment. I fail every moment and have no stand except the Cross and Jesus' righteousness. I'm committed to heralding the merciful message that God loves us because of Jesus, if we'll come to Him.

But none of that stands opposed, in my mind, to what I'm getting at with those questions. And, again, those questions arise from my IMAGINED conversation with you, well down the road of the conversation. I'm just skipping ahead. :)

[Joel W]

Glenn, you have hit the nail on the head. I think we need a book on this. I believe it is the #1 problem with the church today. We are wimps. Me first of all. How many times have I sat with Christians in public, and when we say "Jesus" our voices drop to a whisper in contrast to our previous loud tones. We don't want that stigma. I believe this to be my number one problem spiritually. It is total fear of man. Truth be told, if we do stand up we *will* suffer. Lord have mercy on me and help me.

[Alex]

On a tangential note, regarding being one person:

Do you think that emphasizing or emphasizing certain things we believe in front of one group as opposed to another is wrong?

Here's an example. If you and I were talking, I'd have no problem speaking with the assumption that for an unmarried couple to live together is a sin. However, when speaking with guys who live with their girlfriends, I'm strongly disinclined to refer to the practice as sinful. If asked point blank, I'd say where I stand. And I assume people who know me know where I stand, but I'd say I deemphasize this conviction in front of such people. I could think multiple other examples, where I don't deny anything I believe, but rather emphasize of deemphasize a certain belief to look better in context. I try to catch myself doing it, but sometimes it seems so second-nature.

[Alex]

Typo; I meant to ask: "Do you think that emphasizing or deemphasizing certain things we believe in front of one group as opposed to another is wrong?"

I sometimes have trouble deciphering when it's sensible to avoid seemingly unbeneficial benefit awkwardness vs. when it is cowardly to avoid speaking the truth. I recognize my question is outside the scope of Glenn's post, as it is completely unrelated to academics. So perhaps it's a question better suited in response to a later post.

[Glenn]

Alex,
I think these are matters of wisdom and discernment regarding what is appropriate in particular situations. To put this in an absurd light, it would be crazy to think that we'd be obligated (or physically able in time) to express all truth that we believe at each moment.

In answer to your question about emphasizing vs. de-emphaszing, I would say, "Not necessariy wrong and many times such a decision is wise. Likewise, one can make such a decision for poor reasons. It depends."

A similar wisdom/discernment matter-- to what degree should we privilege "relationship" with others in matters of us either eliding our following of Jesus when asked or in speaking up on our own initiative? It depends. In some circumstances, it is wise to go the extra mile, to defer, to endure, to love through a lot of crap, to refuse to foreclose on the conversation.

At other times, if Jesus is an acceptable model, we say tough, truthful things though we say them in love. It's Law and Gospel, not Gospel only or Law only.

[Vicky]

Glenn, wish we could have that conversation in person--the give-and-take is much easier verbally than in the blogosphere. However, for now I'll try to respond to your questions, in the interest of blog dialogue.
1. What do you make of the ethical imperatives of the gospel? My response is that I see those ethical imperatives as essential guidelines for my Christian practice, spoken by Jesus, and possible for me to attain and live by, if I ask the spirit's help. You used the phrase "what do you make" and I wonder what else you meant by that--did I answer your question?

2. What do you make of biblical shoulds and oughts? What is the place of laying out imperatives? My response: sometimes in the Bible there are commandments of different kinds (is that what you meant by shoulds and oughts?)--and I think that some of those commandments were given for specific times, as detailed culturally specific interpretations of spiritual laws. In Leviticus, commandments are provided for planting and handling hides and having slaves; if modern equivalents were given, they might be about driving in traffic and working with colleagues and so forth. It seems to me that some or all of those culturally-specific commandments are subject to change over time in terms of their specific details, while spiritual laws remain unchanging, reiterated throughout scripture, and followed by Christians nowadays also. So, as a result, I try to discern what I ought to do in following God and scripture, and this takes alot of thought and prayer. I also think that I have to refrain from telling my neighbors and fellow-believers what they should and ought to do. If I think someone needs to hear that they are doing something hurtful, I have to give my response lots of prayer and thought. When does a rebuke become a negative witness? when can I help with my words, and when can I help by example?

3. What is the place for church discipline?
My response: this is one of the most difficult questions vexing Christians, I think. Paul wrote so much about this, so we know the problem isn't new. Sometimes the church's response seems obvious: if a minister or staffperson or congregation member is (for example) stealing from the collection plate, committing adultery, speaking meanspiritedly, lying, or otherwise hurting the church, it is obvious that action (reproof, and maybe other kinds of discipline) needs to be taken. But what about the grey areas? What are they, and how do Christians constructively cope? This calls for prayerful thought. And, what if I belong to one church and you belong to another, and one of us does something that the other deems wrong or hurtful? What is our responsibility to one another? what is the charitable response?

4. What is the place for criticism? My response: I look to Jesus' words and the epistles for guidance in thinking about how I should criticise, and about what kind of criticism I find profitable when someone is addressing me. What can people hear? what makes hearers stop listening? how to be gentle yet honest? When to be blunt? I don't have easy answers for this. Often, when a critic speaks out, people will respond with What right have you to judge me? and then they stop listening, so dialogue ends. This might make the critic feel a visceral satisfaction, but was that their purpose? Deft criticism is clearly a rare art, or craft.

What are your answers to these questions, Glenn?

Vicky

[Molly]

This passage just came to mind…

1 Corinthians 9:19-23
"Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."

Though I think I understand the fine line between altering myself in order to win someone over and relinquishing my integrity in order to fit in, this passage continues to make me wonder. These grad students you speak of seem to have caved in when they entered the university setting; are there some of us, though, who are conversely too strong willed? Those of us who drive others away because we don't have the ability to bend and gain the trust of those outside our friend group? I know that Paul was doing this "for the sake of the gospel," but what a challenge to honestly and authentically imitate! How are we to blend in enough to win over and “save some” but not so much as to give up our “set apart-ness” in Christ? I am constantly challenged by this tension.

One thought on criticism: I heard a Christian marriage psychologist say once that you should you use the 5:1 rule when criticizing others. He says that for every 5 positive statements a person hears from his or her partner, the person can accept 1 critical statement with grace – this is apparently the compliment to complaint ratio needed to maintain a level of trust and security in a healthy relationship. I know this is not a biblical concept, but it gets to the heart of correction in a church. It establishes relationship before to discipline. I think love is taking time to know someone as completely as possible and to care for them more than they may even care about themselves. Only love and care can produce fruitful correction and criticism. And Vicky, I agree - deft criticism that moves me to see my own fault is amazingly effective!

[Glenn]

Vicky,
You were generous with your time in giving a long (for the blog realm) and thoughtful response. Thank you. And I agree that this would be far better in person!

I like your answers a lot. I see deference to the Lord and His Word, sensitivity and love for His creatures- redeemed or not-, and a commitment to seeking His wisdom through Word, prayer and reflection.

You ask me to address the same questions, which I need to do having asked them of you.

I see the gospel's ethical imperatives bound up in submission to the King, and they are for our good and His glory. When we fail to keep the ethical imperatives of the gospel, we don't lose His love and acceptance. This cannot be heralded enough to lost and found.

However, when we fail to keep the imperatives we incur in our beings the opposite of our good and we give the glory that is due Him to a false god instead. I don't know of contemporary vocabulary that describes this state of affairs well. An older word seems to describe this better- wicked.

I love the Reformed tradition's commitment to press with unmitigated force both the Law and the Gospel. I want to think my ethical failings are trivial because I've done so many wicked things so many, many times and yet survive. I often mistake God's kindness in the face of my cherished whoring for indifference. When the Gospel only is heralded, without due heralding of the Law, sometimes I think my wicked commissions and omissions are mere peccadillos. I take that undiminished acceptance and love from God and treat it shabbily as what is due me.

The heralding of the Law reminds me that I am a creature, not the Creator; that I am wicked and not righteous, not even okay, on my own; and that my many miseries are the fruit of careful, skilled cultivation of evil abiding in me (Romans 7:17). The confrontation with the Law breaks me, sometimes in a sigh, an "Oh yeah...time to repent" and other times in tears and aching remorse.

You know the cycle-- the brokenness drives me again to Jesus, to confess and repent, to be nourished by the means of grace, to receive grace that seemingly brings physical, emotional, and cognitive healing. I find joy when I approach the Throne boldly and leave a bizarre mix of abased joy.

Of course the Law can be articulated in grotesque ways, as happens with vitriolic criticism, with truth spoken divested of love. I think we want to be merciful and patient with sinners, even as He is merciful and patient with us, but we also don't want to coddle sin as He does not coddle sin.

You are correct about being wise and sensitive about how we criticize and we should give attention to communicating in such as will most likely be heard and received by the person.

Comma.

But this is not absolute. We dare not think we are the Holy Spirit and that our wisest, gentlest, most loving words and understanding will do the work for the Spirit. There are times, probably infrequent, when speaking the truth in love though we know it won't be received is what we should do because bearing witness to the holiness of God requires it. I've not done this much, and I've not had it done to me much (though some). In some of these instances, much later a guy has returned saying, "I could never get your words out of my head. God used that." The few others...perhaps I did damage or maybe not..I just don't know.

Back to you. If we were in person I'd be overdue to close my mouth and listen to you respond.

[Timothy]

Nice long conversation on this one, Glenn. It's obviously a topic that resonates. I think the 'post-evangelical' terminology arises out of a desire to dissassociate from the Falwell brand of 'evangelical'. Evangelicals in the UK are leading intellectuals (Stott, McGrath, etc). What the media in the US calls 'evangelicals' are the anti-intellectuals who demand subscription to a set of principles. There needs to be room for the evangelical intellectual, ready to struggle with the mysteries and engage the difficult issues of the day with sincere interest while not leaving the historical/orthodox faith behind. I am happy to be called an 'evangelical' in any setting. Nevertheless I feel blue when I see TV heads presenting Falwell's theory of direct divine punishment as the evangelical explanation for Hurricane Katrina!

[Vicky]

Glenn, thanks for this exchange. I'm thirsty for such discussion--happens too rarely, even among the Christians I know!

It seems as if we're in agreement in many areas. A question arises as I read, though, and that's about the Law. How shall we define it and respond?

My views tend to go with Paul's words in Romans 14. Yet I sometimes wonder: what is my responsibility to the Law, beyond the Law of Love which is at the forefront? I read the ten commandments, and wonder about the tradition of the seventh day, which is Saturday, and which the early Christian church set aside, without any support from scripture that I know of, in order to establish the custom of worship on Sunday. I understand the reasoning about honoring Jesus' resurrection on the first day of the week. I do attend church on Sunday, but sometimes I wonder: one must decide, in worshipping on Sunday, to set aside the text of a commandment. That's just one example of a question of Law. Questions of the Law seem to lead, logically, to ideas about the role of Scripture and whether or not one accepts the idea of inerrancy, and how inerrancy is defined. When I consider such questions, I tend to pray and think and read and then follow what seems to be the way of the Lord.

One more point: I've obviously decided to define myself as a Christian, and not as a member of a denomination. How do you define yourself? you mentioned the Reformed tradition--

Do you think Christians in and out of churches should spend much time discussing the Law? or should we just pray and think, individually, about these questions?

Vicky

[Glenn]

Molly, then Timothy:

Molly, I like what you cite about the affirmation/criticism ratio. While not a biblical standard, this can be seen, perhaps, as a common grace insight that is often wise to practice.

I also agree that some in our family express themselves in offensive ways, and I have done way more than my fair share of this. Not that others' sense of offense is the ultimate standard, but love and grace mean attending to others in their humanity. Jesus' statement to do unto others as you would have done unto you is not just wise, it's a command. I like being treated graciously and we should, I think, default on being graceful.

Timothy:
Yes, when public evangelical leaders state and do things that cause us consternation, it is tempting to flee the label. And, I certainly have to engage in unpleasant definition discussions with believers of other stripes and non-believers when they seemingly associate me with public evangelicals that don't exemplify Christ as I understand Him.

You probably met the Rev. Skip Burzumato and perhaps became friends with him before he headed to Savannah to be the rector of St. Andrews. Skip used to say that when discussing with non-believers the controversial evangelical leaders who had made this or that regrettable public statement, he would always defend the leaders as his family. I suppose he would distance himself from the regrettable statements but he said would defend to the hilt those leaders as his brothers. He said this is what you do with family.

Privately he would criticize what he saw needed criticism, as one would criticize an errant family member.

But all of this is about the label stuff, and I'm not primarily concerned with Christian grad students dodging the evangelical label. Rather, their explicit fudge statements about beliefs and practices of historic orthodoxy when around other academics. It's the matter of eliding aspects of faith so as to fit in, to be accepted.

[Glenn]

Vicky,
Good questions about the Law. I don't know how well I can answer them; hopefully some other readers who are more in their depth on such questions will join in.

I've had exposure in different ways to a few "camps" on the Law. It seems that the various camps have tough questions that people in other camps have some difficult answering. This is similar to most theological disputes in my experience-- whatever camp one is in, one can use a text or texts and some adroit questioning to put a person in another camp in a tough spot.

All to say, while I have come to a place of settled rest on a number of theological issues, including the nature and use of the Law in the New Covenant, I am aware that there are tough questions for which I won't have satisfying answers.

That was all preface.

Much (not all) of the Reformed tradition has seen the Law as comprised of three parts: ceremonial, moral and civil. The ceremonial we believe to have been fulfilled in the life and ministry of Jesus, and the move away from national Israel to a Kingdom comprised of every tribe and tongue meant the abrogation of the civil law. What remains, then, is the moral law, "summarily comprehended" in the Ten Words (WSC language).

Paul and Jesus do say that Loving the Lord and loving our neighbor sum up the Law. The Ten Words or Commandments show us how to love the Lord and how to love our neighbors.

Regarding the Sabbath, I confess to great ignorance here regarding the date. Hopefully a reader in the know will help us out on what happened.

It seems to me that the Law requires a day of rest after six days of work. The Reformed tradition has emphatically extolled Sabbath-keeping. I'm not sure that the Law prescribes what we in the West call "Saturday". I'm not sure the day of the week was specified in Law; maybe it was and I am forgetting where. My sense is that calendrical adjustments have been made by elites multiple times over the millennia and thus some ambiguity may pertain to the day of the week.

All to say, I'm not sure that the Reformed zealously keeping the Sabbath on "the Lord's Day" constitutes laying aside a commandment.

You write:
"When I consider such questions, I tend to pray and think and read and then follow what seems to be the way of the Lord."

At one level, I would agree. Ultimately, Christians are responsible to exercise a degree of private judgment about what they believe and how they act in following Christ.

At another level, I would want to hear more from you so that I could understand better what you're saying and what this looks like in specific situations. Why would I be wary? Because "what seems to be the way of the Lord" could open one up to TOO much subjectivism. Not necessarily, but possibly. So I would want to hear more about what you mean.

Regarding definition, I am with you in defining myself as a Christian. Within the Christian community, there are multiple theological traditions. All have their weak spots, but as I have inhabited and read inside a few traditions, the Reformed tradition has come to be the most plausible to me. In fact, I would say that Reformed pastors have come to help me see the Scriptures in a fresh ways, and in so doing have helped me to understand Jesus better than I did before.

Regarding your last question, there aren't many things that I think should be done individually, if by that you mean to the exclusion of doing these things in community.

[Patrick]

"But all of this is about the label stuff, and I'm not primarily concerned with Christian grad students dodging the evangelical label. Rather, their explicit fudge statements about beliefs and practices of historic orthodoxy when around other academics. It's the matter of eliding aspects of faith so as to fit in, to be accepted."

Glenn, I'm glad you wrote this because it seems to me to be an important distinction. I don't lose sleep over losing the label "evangelical" --not only because of its associations with the Dobsons/Robertsons of the world. I think sensitivity to audience is a genuine concern. If someone has certain negative associations/caricatures with the word that would prevent them from considering the claims of faith, why use it? I don't see that as "fudging" or conceding too much ground because it's a nonessential term. Besides what some may see as subcultural or ecclesiastical baggage, the term also suffers from its very ubiquity and slipperiness. Hence, I've spoken to people about my faith in terms of historic, ecumenical (creedal) Christian orthodoxy.
For these people, the effort to help them see through the failings--or inaccurate caricatures--of evangelicalism is secondary to having them consider the claims of Christian orthodoxy.
But I'll be the first to admit that despite all this, my efforts are frequently tainted by the temptation of self-preservation and aversion to suffering.

[Vicky]

Glenn, I really like your words about "camps" holding viewpoints about the Law. And also I hold that view about the segmentation of the Law into ceremonial, moral, civil.

When you wrote "At another level, I would want to hear more from you so that I could understand better what you're saying and what this looks like in specific situations. Why would I be wary? Because "what seems to be the way of the Lord" could open one up to TOO much subjectivism. Not necessarily, but possibly. So I would want to hear more about what you mean."

This is a tough one to answer without rambling, so I ask your pardon in advance. The last thing I want is to be so subjective in my approach to following the Lord that I veer away from doing what's right. I want to know what is right, and do that. So I go to Scripture, listen in church, talk with fellow believers and with nonbelievers and all sorts, to keep thinking. Because of the ways I fell, earlier in my life, I always try to keep thinking and praying so as to avoid those particular traps (though others may, of course, loom).

And then sometimes I incur criticism from fellow believers. Which doesn't bother me much, unless I think they might be right, in which case I need to reconsider my thinking.

But this opens up a can of worms, or a line of questioning, which you touched upon in your book, and this was never quite resolved: how do we know what is right? how do we recognize truth? these are old, hard questions, I know, and am not looking to anyone for easy answers. Perhaps we have to face those questions anew, almost every day?

Vicky

[Vicky]

One more question, Glenn--which Reformed pastors/theologies are you referring to? --just curious, as you sound inspired on the point--

[Glenn]

Vicky,
I'm glad you're not looking for easy answers on the questions of how do we know who is right and what is right? When the men and women who affirm the Scripture's authority interpet Scripture in different ways on a host of issues, it is difficult to discern the way forward. I've got no easy answers.

Reformed pastor/theologians of the "no longer with us" sort who have been influential on me: John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer, John Owen, John Bunyan, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, John Murray, Geerhardus Vos, Abraham Kuyper, Cornelius Van Til, Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones, James Boice, Jack Miller and Ed Clowney.

Reformed pastor/theologians living who have helped me know and follow Christ:
J.I. Packer, Mike Malone (St. Paul's PCA in Winter Park), Greg Thompson, Tony Giles, Ben Laugelli (the last three are at Trinity PCA in Charlottesville), John Hall, Bill Wilder, Drew Trotter, John Piper, John Stott, Mark Dever, Al Mohler, Al Mawhinney, Reggie Kidd, Mike Glodo, Steve Childers, Ben Young, Sinclair Ferguson, Tim Keller, Chuck DeGroat, Dave Saville.

The person who has most influenced me with regard to the Scriptures, theology and a life lived as a servant theologian is Richard Pratt. Everyone should have such a teacher.