How to Motivate?
I was recently listening to the audio version of a Christian book that is apparently doing well sales-wise. It got me thinking about it's message, but more so about what makes a message effective in terms of bringing about change. What draws a believer from point A to point B in his spiritual journey?
The reason I'm thinking about this is because I find that although I agree with most of what the author says in the book, I'm resisting it at the same time. I'm not even planning to finish it, at this point. It's not just this book that causes such a reaction though. It's the messages of many books and sermons.
I will say at the outset that I'm the worst and taking direction or correction. Case in point, my community theater days. The director of whatever play I was acting in would tell me to do something differently and I would simply bristle. I don't remember outright arguing. In fact, I have no recollection of any sort of reply I made. Perhaps once or twice I'd say why I'd made the choice I did. But I'm pretty sure that inwardly I would seethe, and the part of me that sits back and observes my behavoir would think, "What's with this guy."
That's just a microcosm of other areas in my life. But as with most personality issues, there is paradox. On the whole I always desire to come across as very cooperative and agreeable. I'm no trouble maker.
Be that as it may, it makes me ponder what approach does work for the likes of me. One might say-- to use Christian language-- my flesh resists being told what to do. This, in turn, makes me wonder if perhaps at times the messenger is, unwittingly, addressing or making an appeal to my flesh, which is, of course futile, given what the flesh is, by definition. That is, there is a subtle or not so subtle appeal to law-- what one should do to be good and acceptable. The flesh is all about that.
I suppose I should back up and describe the sorts of messages I resist. A prime example would be those messages which enumerate the twenty things wrong with being an American Christian. Of course, in my irritation I could be exaggerating the number. Still, I resent the assumption on the part of some messengers-- at least insofar as what their approach would indicate-- that I'm unaware how rich I am compared to the rest of the world. Messengers with that message have been on me with that point and many other related issues about the American church since my youth group days, and that was a very long time ago.
This is just an example, though-- and the key word is "assumption". When a messenger assumes the worst about me, they've already lost me. I can see it coming when they say things like, "You're not going to like what I have to say next." How can they know such a thing? (Of course, by saying that, they guarantee I won't like it.) And it's not just a matter of assuming the worst about me. Often it's just the assumption I haven't read certain passages in the Bible before, or I haven't considered issues before.
"Well," one might say, "if the shoe fits--. If it applies to you, take heed. Otherwise, just ignore what's being said. After all, it's not all about you."
Which is true. Still, even if a scolding isn't meant for me, I take no pleasure in listening to scolding directed at someone else. And this is getting more to the heart of what is certain not to motivate me in a message-- scolding. If there is such a thing as shame that motivates people to engage in Christ-like behavior, it would have to be the shame that derives from the messenger making an assessment of the listener that's too high, not one that's too low.
Here's the gist of what I'm saying: it seems to me that messengers too often put the new wine of God's grace and love and life in the old wineskins of scolding, nagging, and cajoling. It's ironic that at times they even do this when making the admonition to do good works not out of guilt but out of love-- becuase this is what you really should do and if you don't operate out of love, you should really feel guilty about that. No one says that, of course-- not in so many words. But sometimes the message feels like that old joke that goes something like, "The beatings will continue until there is an improvement in morale."
I don't know. We know and say that women want love and men want respect. But this adage shouldn't just be confined to marriage. Those who have any desire to influence a man with a Christian message can't afford to veer away from respect either.
It's not that I'm asking to have my ears tickled. It's not that I don't like a challenge. On the contrary. For example, in my college days when I was studying what was then called "commercial art" I found that when the teacher assigned an advertising layout/idea problem to us, I would be chomping at the bit, while most of my fellow classmates would groan and complain. There are many other sorts of challenges I've felt the same way about. But often a messenger will undercut their own challenge by assuming I, the listener, don't want a challenge. It's just that I'd like something more along the lines of the St. Crispin's day speech from Henry V (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1Ulz-Qwnx8&feature=fvst) than "I know you're not going to like this, but you have to do this."
Well of course, as I say, my flesh certainly won't like it. But might there be some way to address me as though my flesh isn't the true me? If the Spirit of Christ dwells in me, can't the appeal be made in that direction? Shouldn't there be something about a biblical message that sets it apart from a sales pitch for a car or toothpaste? Isn't it desirable to lead the saints to the easy yoke of Christ, without using a yoke of slavery to get them there? "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery." Galatians 5:1. If you feel a passion for freedom (and I do in spades) don't mistake it for a spirit of rebellion and thus chastise yourself, friend.
I'm not making a critique against any speaker, writer, or pastor in particular. What I'm talking about is too widespread to single anyone out. In fact, my wrestling in this matter is always with the hope I can better learn to motivate myself and to operate in partnership with the Holy Spirit-- the one who comes alongside.
"Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care... not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." I Peter 5:2,3. Now I imagine a lot of people assume God is telling shepherds not to lord it over the flock because lording it over people is God's department. But I don't think so. The Lord is my ultimate Shepherd, and the imagery is chosen by Peter as a contrast to lording it over people. Peter is just echoing what he heard Jesus say in Matthew 20:25-28: "...You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant.. just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve..." In fact, the only other context in which the Greek word is used in the Bible is in Acts 19:16, where a man with an evil spirit overpowers (lords it over) and beats some Jews who were trying to cast out demons.
One can lord it over people by means like the Spanish Inquisition, or with the methods of Jim Jones and other cult leaders, but there are more subtle ways to lord it over people. All it takes is talking down to people in any way. Maybe highly sensitive are more prone to think they are being spoken down to than others. At any rate those who speak should do so "as one speaking the very words of God" (1 Peter 4:11) to God's own children.
So what do I do with those passages in the New Testament which are indeed directed toward the saints and are undoubtedly of a scolding nature? Even the letters to the churches directly from Christ in Revelation have that flavor. I will just have to admit God uses different approaches to fit each situation. He uses different personalities and different gifting too.
Deuteronomy 27:12,13 says "When you have crossed over the Jordan, these shall stand on Mount Gerizim to bless the people: Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Joseph, and Benjamin. And these shall stand on Mount Ebal for the curse: Reuben, Gad, Asher, Zebulun, Dan, and Naphtali." I suppose it's my personality and gifting that I would prefer to be of the group standing on Mount Gerizim.
The reason I'm thinking about this is because I find that although I agree with most of what the author says in the book, I'm resisting it at the same time. I'm not even planning to finish it, at this point. It's not just this book that causes such a reaction though. It's the messages of many books and sermons.
I will say at the outset that I'm the worst and taking direction or correction. Case in point, my community theater days. The director of whatever play I was acting in would tell me to do something differently and I would simply bristle. I don't remember outright arguing. In fact, I have no recollection of any sort of reply I made. Perhaps once or twice I'd say why I'd made the choice I did. But I'm pretty sure that inwardly I would seethe, and the part of me that sits back and observes my behavoir would think, "What's with this guy."
That's just a microcosm of other areas in my life. But as with most personality issues, there is paradox. On the whole I always desire to come across as very cooperative and agreeable. I'm no trouble maker.
Be that as it may, it makes me ponder what approach does work for the likes of me. One might say-- to use Christian language-- my flesh resists being told what to do. This, in turn, makes me wonder if perhaps at times the messenger is, unwittingly, addressing or making an appeal to my flesh, which is, of course futile, given what the flesh is, by definition. That is, there is a subtle or not so subtle appeal to law-- what one should do to be good and acceptable. The flesh is all about that.
I suppose I should back up and describe the sorts of messages I resist. A prime example would be those messages which enumerate the twenty things wrong with being an American Christian. Of course, in my irritation I could be exaggerating the number. Still, I resent the assumption on the part of some messengers-- at least insofar as what their approach would indicate-- that I'm unaware how rich I am compared to the rest of the world. Messengers with that message have been on me with that point and many other related issues about the American church since my youth group days, and that was a very long time ago.
This is just an example, though-- and the key word is "assumption". When a messenger assumes the worst about me, they've already lost me. I can see it coming when they say things like, "You're not going to like what I have to say next." How can they know such a thing? (Of course, by saying that, they guarantee I won't like it.) And it's not just a matter of assuming the worst about me. Often it's just the assumption I haven't read certain passages in the Bible before, or I haven't considered issues before.
"Well," one might say, "if the shoe fits--. If it applies to you, take heed. Otherwise, just ignore what's being said. After all, it's not all about you."
Which is true. Still, even if a scolding isn't meant for me, I take no pleasure in listening to scolding directed at someone else. And this is getting more to the heart of what is certain not to motivate me in a message-- scolding. If there is such a thing as shame that motivates people to engage in Christ-like behavior, it would have to be the shame that derives from the messenger making an assessment of the listener that's too high, not one that's too low.
Here's the gist of what I'm saying: it seems to me that messengers too often put the new wine of God's grace and love and life in the old wineskins of scolding, nagging, and cajoling. It's ironic that at times they even do this when making the admonition to do good works not out of guilt but out of love-- becuase this is what you really should do and if you don't operate out of love, you should really feel guilty about that. No one says that, of course-- not in so many words. But sometimes the message feels like that old joke that goes something like, "The beatings will continue until there is an improvement in morale."
I don't know. We know and say that women want love and men want respect. But this adage shouldn't just be confined to marriage. Those who have any desire to influence a man with a Christian message can't afford to veer away from respect either.
It's not that I'm asking to have my ears tickled. It's not that I don't like a challenge. On the contrary. For example, in my college days when I was studying what was then called "commercial art" I found that when the teacher assigned an advertising layout/idea problem to us, I would be chomping at the bit, while most of my fellow classmates would groan and complain. There are many other sorts of challenges I've felt the same way about. But often a messenger will undercut their own challenge by assuming I, the listener, don't want a challenge. It's just that I'd like something more along the lines of the St. Crispin's day speech from Henry V (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1Ulz-Qwnx8&feature=fvst) than "I know you're not going to like this, but you have to do this."
Well of course, as I say, my flesh certainly won't like it. But might there be some way to address me as though my flesh isn't the true me? If the Spirit of Christ dwells in me, can't the appeal be made in that direction? Shouldn't there be something about a biblical message that sets it apart from a sales pitch for a car or toothpaste? Isn't it desirable to lead the saints to the easy yoke of Christ, without using a yoke of slavery to get them there? "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery." Galatians 5:1. If you feel a passion for freedom (and I do in spades) don't mistake it for a spirit of rebellion and thus chastise yourself, friend.
I'm not making a critique against any speaker, writer, or pastor in particular. What I'm talking about is too widespread to single anyone out. In fact, my wrestling in this matter is always with the hope I can better learn to motivate myself and to operate in partnership with the Holy Spirit-- the one who comes alongside.
"Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care... not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." I Peter 5:2,3. Now I imagine a lot of people assume God is telling shepherds not to lord it over the flock because lording it over people is God's department. But I don't think so. The Lord is my ultimate Shepherd, and the imagery is chosen by Peter as a contrast to lording it over people. Peter is just echoing what he heard Jesus say in Matthew 20:25-28: "...You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant.. just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve..." In fact, the only other context in which the Greek word is used in the Bible is in Acts 19:16, where a man with an evil spirit overpowers (lords it over) and beats some Jews who were trying to cast out demons.
One can lord it over people by means like the Spanish Inquisition, or with the methods of Jim Jones and other cult leaders, but there are more subtle ways to lord it over people. All it takes is talking down to people in any way. Maybe highly sensitive are more prone to think they are being spoken down to than others. At any rate those who speak should do so "as one speaking the very words of God" (1 Peter 4:11) to God's own children.
So what do I do with those passages in the New Testament which are indeed directed toward the saints and are undoubtedly of a scolding nature? Even the letters to the churches directly from Christ in Revelation have that flavor. I will just have to admit God uses different approaches to fit each situation. He uses different personalities and different gifting too.
Deuteronomy 27:12,13 says "When you have crossed over the Jordan, these shall stand on Mount Gerizim to bless the people: Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Joseph, and Benjamin. And these shall stand on Mount Ebal for the curse: Reuben, Gad, Asher, Zebulun, Dan, and Naphtali." I suppose it's my personality and gifting that I would prefer to be of the group standing on Mount Gerizim.
Comments
Post a Comment