All posts tagged Change

Is Personality Hereditary?

by brad on June 3, 2013 in Counseling Reflection with 2 Comments

This is an interesting question; a question that anyone with multiple children has grappled with. How can my children so instinctively respond just like me or my spouse? But on the other hand, how can two children from the same parents be so different?

One set of anecdotal observations says personality must be genetic – the level of commonality seems too great to be explained solely by environmental influence.  But another set of anecdotal observations seems to say the opposite – if two children share so much genetic code in common, how could their personalities take on such contrasts?

In a recent sent of lectures I was listening to from a leading neuro-psychologist,[1] he said that research estimates that 50% of the extroversion-introversion personality trait was determined by genetics.[2] The other 50% was determined by factors such as home stability, birth order, early socialization experiences, etc…

On face value that’s not shocking. In the age-old nature vs. nurture debate that is about what we would expect; half of our personality is inherited, the other half is learned or molded. But it was the next two statistics that he gave from the same research that caused me to pause.

According to the research he reviewed, he said that:

  • 60% of whether you are politically conservative or liberal was genetically determined and
  • 70% of whether you marry and the quality of your marriage was genetically determined.

A quick word about his research; from what I could tell, his scientific work was excellent. He referenced meta-analysis studies not single study published research findings. There is a big difference in the quality between the two. Meta-analysis (in layman’s terms) average out the findings of hundreds of studies on a subject. A single published study is trying to find something interesting/significant enough to get published.

All of this to say, I am not questioning the quality of his work. To whatever degree that the hereditability of personality traits or life outcomes can be predicted scientifically, I trust the style of work Dr. Leary was doing. In addition to this, he is highly esteemed by his peers (not just popular media outlets, who tend to prefer the more eye-catching, yet-to-be-verified studies).

So what do we make of the 50% genetically determined personality statistic now? I think most of us would say it’s less impressive that we thought when we read it initially.

For the moment let’s assume all of the statistics are correct (I do not have the credentials or expertise to debate his methods). Let me frame two questions that help us assess what we do with the 50% hereditability of personality statistics.

  • How much weight do you give the 40% of non-genetic factors in your political leanings?
  • How much weight do you give the 30% non-genetic factors in the quality of your marriage?

My guess is most readers would say, “A great deal of weight.” As a hard-working father, I probably only get to share 30% of the waking hours with my two boys. But I believe those hours carry as much weigh/influence as (probably more than) almost anything else in their life.

I believe, if these numbers are true, we should think the same way about the choice-factors in our personality. If God knit us together in our mother’s womb (Ps. 139:13) and has plans for us to accomplish for his glory (Eph. 2:1), then why would be surprised that God began preparing us for those good works genetically from the moment of our conception.

As an important side note on this subject, I believe we must be careful not to place a good-bad distinction on the extrovert-introvert spectrum (or any other personality variable for that matter). Thinking of certain personality traits as good-bad, leads us to accept a can-can’t mentality on the basis of personality.

As a quick personal example, I am a pretty intense introvert. For a long time I assumed this meant I could not be a leader, public speaker, or (at times) even a good Christian husband. I mistook this personality trait for a limitation on my other gifts and abilities. Similarly, I mistook a relational role (leader) for a personality type (extrovert). Now I am comfortable being an introverted leader and husband.

So what should our take away from this reflection be? I would propose it should be the following three points:

  • If 50% of my personality is genetic… (I can trust that God designed these elements of my personality to coincide with His purposed for my life),
  • … then there is still 50% of my personality over which I have influence… (I should expect that I will frequently be called by God to do things that are uncomfortable to my natural bent and trust Him to give me whatever I need to accomplish these tasks),
  • AND 100% of my personality can express itself in whatever ways necessary to accomplish whatever God lays out for my life.

Join the Conversation

How does viewing genetic influences in light of God’s design change the way you think about genetic influence upon personality?

How might the church reinforce the cultural notion (implicitly or explicitly) that certain personality traits are more valuable or desirable than others and, thereby, discourage a significant percentage of congregants?

Note: This post was originally posted on the “Grace and Truth” blog of the Biblical Counseling Coalition.


[1] The lectures were from The Great Courses series (www.thegreatcourses.com). The lecture series was “Understanding the Mysteries of Human Behavior” by Dr. Mark Leary, Garonzik Family Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience at Duke University. My reasons for listening these lectures were two fold. First, I wanted to be more informed of neuro-psychology. Second, my church has a large number of students from Duke University and I believed it was an important part of learning the community in which I serve as Pastor of Counseling.

 

[2] These statistics come from Lecture 3 “Where Do People’s Personalities Come From?” While I disagree with Dr. Leary’s predominant evolutionary beliefs about human origins and the development of personality, I do not believe these beliefs contrasts influenced his interpretation of this research.

Burnout

by brad on April 4, 2013 in Counseling Reflection with 2 Comments

burnoutBurnout is never caused by a single area of life. Burn out is a function of our total life management. One area of life cannot get out of order without overt choices of neglect being made other areas of life. This means that if we managed the others areas of our life well, it would have contained the area (i.e., work, ministry, parenting, etc…) that was the primary cause of burnout. We must resist the temptation to blame life, or even one area of our life management, for the experience of burnout. Burnout is a result of how we have managed our life as a whole.

So we might begin our assessment of burnout’s cause with this foundational statement—burnout is the result of living beyond our means with the time God has provided. It is common to say that someone is “living beyond their means” financially. There is a cultural epidemic of people spending more than they earn. The majority of Americans have a negative net-worth; we owe more than we own. We will use this parallel of financial and time management many times, so begin to think in these categories.

The first thing God’s fairness requires of the person moving towards burnout is to rest in the fact that everything fits in a 168 hour week. This means that even if there are 200 hours worth of excellent things to be accomplished in a week, that you can have assurance at least 32 hours of your agenda is outside the will of God for your life; not “outside the will of God” in terms of being bad, but “outside the will of God” in the sense that God will accomplish this, if it needs to be done, through someone else.

Resource

In my booklet Burnout: Resting in God’s Fairness there is a “time budget tool.” Here is a printable version of the blank and overdrawn sample of this resource.

 

C.S. Lewis on a Balanced Personalities

by brad on March 4, 2013 in Counseling Reflection with 1 Comment

A Counselor Reflects on Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

“‘Niceness’ – wholesome, integrated personality – is an excellent thing. We must try by every medical, educational, economic, and political means in our power to produce a world where as many people as possible grow up ‘nice’; just as we must try to produce a world where all have plenty to eat. But we must not suppose that even if we succeeded in making everyone nice we should have saved their souls… For mere improvement is not redemption, though redemption always improves people (p. 215-216).” Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

lewisAll squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. That is the same logic that Lewis using when he says: redemption produces improvement, but not all improvement is redemptive. That would mean there are some forms of “better” that are “fool’s gold” if we are relying on our performance as assurance that we are right with God.

But let’s slow down and take the journey as Lewis lays it out. There are many ways to help people enjoy life more and to increase the quality of their relationships. Education provides more effective ways to approach life and improves the quality of conversations. The medical field reduces the interference of pain and disease. A good economy provides opportunities to pursue dreams. Politics should ensure safety and equality of opportunity between people.

But let’s assume, for the sake of intellectual honesty, we lived in a country with excellent education, good medicine, a growing economy, and a just government; would that resolve the greatest challenges that face individuals and society – crime, selfishness, laziness, family neglect, prejudice,  etc…?

In various times throughout human history there have been civilizations that thrived in most of these areas, but they have all failed to make people good. No civilization has eliminated addiction, abuse, or manipulation. No education system has implanted motivation where it was lacking. No health system can curb people’s intent to live in unhealthy ways.

These things can increase a culture’s “average life expectancy” and sometimes produce cultural trends that show the more grievous expressions of sin (i.e., violent crime) are decreasing. But they cannot make individual souls or families whole. They cannot replace the despair of impending death with the hope of eternal life.

I agree with Lewis. We should do everything we morally can at the civic, scientific, and educational levels to enrich culture and the life of every person within that culture. But we must also recognize that better will be woefully insufficient without redemption.

Something must radically change within a person, before changes in his/her environment will have the effect we all know is needed. People need the new heart Christ offers (Ezek. 36:26) in order for positive changes culture offers to take root. Otherwise the soil of our heart is rocky and short term good works are choked out by the cares of our world and the selfishness of our nature (Luke 8:4-15).

So as we teach, govern, care, counsel, or in any other way seek to enrich the lives of those around us, let us remember we are doing a good thing. But let us do these good things as opportunities to leverage these relationships for the purpose of sharing the ultimate thing – the gospel. In that way, we can help people improve their life (in whatever way our vocation helps others improve their life) without creating the false hope/pressure that their hope is in their ability to improve.

C.S. Lewis on “If Christianity Were True…”

by brad on February 4, 2013 in Counseling Reflection with No comments

A Counselor Reflects on Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

“If Christianity is true why are not all Christians obviously nicer than all non-Christians? What lies behind that question is partly something very reasonable and partly something that is not reasonable at all. The reasonable part is this. If conversion to Christianity makes no improvement in a man’s outward actions… then I think we must suspect that his ‘conversion’ was largely imaginary… [Unreasonable] They may also demand before they believe in Christianity that they should see the whole world neatly divided into two camps – Christians and non-Christians—and that all the people in the first camp at any given moment should be obviously nicer than all the people in the second (p. 207-208).” Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

lewisImagine two different team sports – basketball and “Red Rover.” In basketball you have starters and reserves; stars and role players. You can have a great team without everyone on the team being great; some do one thing well, others have potential and are working hard to mature. The team easily transcends any given player.

In “Red Rover” each team stands in a line with hands united and selects one person (the obvious weakest player) from the other team by saying, “Red rover, red rover send Billie right over.” Billie must then try to run through the opponents line, but he was selected because he was the least likely to be able to do so.

This image helps us understand the reasonable and unreasonable aspects of what Lewis is pointing out in Christianity’s critics.

The reasonable part of their critique stems from the basketball imagery. If any player is “on the team” then he/she should be showing some improvement that would help the team succeed. Not every Christian will be a star, but even role players should show advances in the fundamentals of the game – character (humility), worship (awed by better things), and understanding (ability to apply the gospel). If not, then the “coach” (God) is not who He claims to be.

The unreasonable part of their critique is revealed by the “Red Rover” imagery. When a team is judged by its weakest link (based on whatever criteria is most relevant at the moment), there will be a distinct competitive disadvantage.

Even if a team’s best play is judged by every moment of performance it will not tell the whole story. Michael Jordan missed more potential game winning shots than he made. No one would say that those moments of performance define his sports legacy.

This rebuttal does not prove that Christianity is true. Neither is it meant to defend anyone who does repugnant things in the name of Christ. It’s not even meant to defend me when I fail to live up to the standard of Christ, for whom I try to live as an ambassador.

It is merely an attempt to answer an honest question raised by many believers and non-believers. We shouldn’t assume that questions are raised by those who disagree with us or even those who are disagreeable. As you read through this discussion an important question to ask yourself would be, “Was I imagining winning an argument or taking a step towards winning a person to Christ?”

C.S. Lewis on God’s HGTV Show

by brad on January 21, 2013 in Counseling Reflection with No comments

A Counselor Reflects on Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

“Imagine yourself as a living house. God comes in to rebuild that house. At first, perhaps, you can understand what He is doing. He is getting the drains right and stopping the leaks in the roof and so on: you knew that those jobs needed doing and so you are not surprised. But presently he starts knocking the house about in a way that hurts abominably and does not seem to make sense. What on earth is He up to? The explanation is that He is building quite a different house from the one you thought of – throwing out a new wing here, putting on an extra floor there, running up towers, making courtyards. You thought you were doing to be made into a decent little cottage: but He is building a palace. He intends to come and live in it Himself (p. 205).” Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

lewisTalk about intrusive. God takes the cake on intrusive. He comes into our lives and acts like he owns the place and plans to stay forever. Lewis makes it sound like God is doing the HGTV show “Bathroom Crashers” where someone gets a free remodeling. But the real life experience is not that glamorous (at least not initially).

Let this sink in. God comes in to do an overhaul. God’s involvement is not just cosmetic. God brings a U-Haul, not an overnight bag when He comes. This should be shocking. This is the intent of the language used to describe salvation – “Therefore is anyone is in Christ, he is a new Creation. The old has passed away; behold the new has come (2 Cor. 5:17).”

We invite God into our lives as an honored guest, glad that He would do us the honor of visiting our meager lives, and then realize He intends to be our husband (Eph. 5:32). We keep waiting for the time when things will “return to normal” so we can catch our breath, but we realize He’s not leaving. Normal has been forever changed.

Salvation isn’t a television episode, or even a series; it’s the new reality. There are no commercial breaks or flipping channels. God has moved in.

Remember a television show or cartoon where the main character suddenly gets everything he/she ever wanted and then isn’t prepared for the other changes that domino from this dream-come-true. Lewis is saying that is the uncomfortable fallout of the gospel.

Catch your breath again. This isn’t a nightmare. It’s just overwhelmingly good. Let that sink in. God is so good that we often feel like we need to rest from His goodness. It is over-stimulating. Part (maybe most) of the uneasiness we feel is that our finite minds are trying to absorb God’s infinite goodness. We’re drinking from the fire hydrant of God’s goodness and we’re not thirsty enough to appreciate the stream of blessing.

This isn’t prosperity gospel, because the home that Lewis is referencing (and of which Scripture primarily speaks) is our character and relationships. God’s not putting a sky-light in our bathroom; He’s putting Jesus’ character in our soul.

Our souls are too small for this, so it requires an expansion. That expansion hurts like any growing pains. If you think a renovation is unpleasant for the home owners, try being the home. But the unveiling of the finished product is worth it (Eph. 5:27).

So what is the take away? Trust Jesus, He’s the top listed Carpenter on Angel’s List.

The Dangerous Double Meaning of “Better”

by brad on January 4, 2013 in Counseling Reflection with No comments

“I think I’m doing better… Things are better than they were… I’m doing better than I deserve.” What do you hear in each of these phrases? Obviously they lack context, but even if you know the person speaking these words it is not always clear how to interpret their meaning.

Better can have (at least) two meanings:

  1. Further from “bad” than last measure
  2. The middle mark between “good” and “best”

This creates a problem. If we get comfortable saying we’re doing better (further from “bad”) without actually pursuing what is good, then we begin to believe that we have already achieved “good,” and it’s not working, so we quit because it’s not “worth it.”

Think about the married couple who argue frequently and their marriage is stale. They try to do “better” by not arguing (which for them may only mean not talking). But they make no effort toward what is “good” (showing genuine interest in one another). After a period of doing “better,” they still feel like roommates and begin to think that their marriage is no longer worth the effort.

Or, consider the person who is languishing in self-pity. They try to do “better” by distracting their attention through some form of mindless entertainment (still focused upon self, but for pleasure rather than disdain). But they make no effort towards what is “good” (treasuring Christ as the answer to their failure and loving others as a replacement for self-focus). After a period of time, loneliness and boredom return, and it is assumed that resisting depressive self-pity didn’t work.

When confronted with the fact that their life is “less than good” they become defensive. “Can’t you see that I was trying? I was doing “better” for a while, but I just couldn’t keep it up. It’s too hard.”

What happened? The general pattern is this:

(a) an individual is unwilling to pursue what God calls good,

(b) that individual settles for lesser dysfunction as “better” (definition #1)

(c) short-term relief is experienced which allows for a confusion with definition #2,

(d) that individual returns to his/her sin or dysfunction feeling justified by his/her faux-effort

(e) that individual, when called to pursue what God calls “good,” considers it idealistic or harsh

In light of this reflection consider the following quote from C.S. Lewis:

“I find a good many people have been bothered by what I said in the previous chapter about Our Lord’s words, ‘Be ye perfect.’ Some people seem to think this means ‘Unless you are perfect, I will not help you;’ and as we cannot be perfect, then, if He meant that, our position is hopeless. But I do not think He did mean that. I think He meant “The only help I will give is help to become perfect. You may want something less: but I will give you nothing less (p. 201).” Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

For a devotional on this quote visit www.bradhambrick.com/lewisonperfect

God the Father: Easy to Please, Hard to Satisfy

by brad on December 17, 2012 in Counseling Reflection with 1 Comment

A Counselor Reflects on Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

“And yet – this is the other and equally important side of it – this Helper who will, in the long run, be satisfied with nothing less than absolute perfection, will also be delighted with the first feeble, stumbling effort you make tomorrow to do the simplest duty… Every father is pleased at the baby’s first attempt to walk: no father would be satisfied with anything less than a firm, free, manly walk in grown-up son. In the same way, he [George MacDonald] said, ‘God is easy to please, but hard to satisfy’ (p. 202-3).” Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

We usually err in thinking of God in one or the other of these two categories – easy to please or hard to satisfy – as if they are mutually exclusive. The image that Lewis builds on MacDonald’s sentence is the perfect image because it is the preeminent New Testament image for God – Father.

Consider the father who hears his son/daughter first begin to say words, take a step, speak in sentences, or swing at a ball. Does it matter if the child mispronounces the word, falls down, confuses the verb tense, or misses the ball? Absolutely not! The child is growing and that is thrilling.

When we take steps of faith and obedience that is the heart of God towards us. It does not matter to God where or how we need to mature. It may be something we should have learned 10 years ago, but if we are striving to trust Him in new ways in this moment, God is a proud father.

Consider the father whose son/daughter is satisfied giving partial effort, willing to coast on other people’s work, or fail in important areas of life. Can a good father ignore these life patterns and still say he wants what is “good” for his child? Again, the answer is no. No addressing these issues would either be a form of neglect or enabling (depending on the other forms of parental involvement).

When we fail to steward the skills and opportunities God has given to us, God will not be satisfied. To whom much is given much is expected (Luke 12:48). God entrusts us with life for His glory and anything less bares a severe penalty (Rom. 3:23, 6:23). If we know what ought to be done and fail to do it, that is sin (James 4:17).

But what about when we’ve messed up bad and now life is really hard? How does God view us then? Is he easy to please or hard to satisfy in those moments? The answer is “it depends.”

If we are taking steps of faith and obedience in those moments (regardless of whether we are stumbling like a toddler as we go), then God is pleased. Our sin makes life hard and God does not add shame to those challenges after we respond in humble repentance and begin to follow Him in faith.

If we are giving up out of self-pity or despair, then God is hard to satisfy. His displeasure is meant to startle us from our passivity; the only thing that leaves us “stuck” because His grace is available and able to direct us to hope.

So the questions we must grapple with are these:

  1. Have we let a false view of God the Father hinder our growth?
  2. Do we maintain an accurate view of God even after we fail?
  3. Do we seek to change because of God’s acceptance instead of for it?

To see the first 100 posts in this series click here.

C.S. Lewis on Masturbation

by brad on December 10, 2012 in Counseling Reflection with No comments

A Counselor Reflects on Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

“Dozens of people go to Him [God] to be cured of some one particular sin which they are ashamed of (like masturbation or physical cowardice) or which is obviously spoiling daily life (like bad temper or drunkenness). Well, He will cure it all right: but He will not stop there. That may be all you asked; but if once you call Him in, He will give you the full treatment (p. 202).” Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

It is easy to read this quote as if it were threatening – “the full treatment” comes across as some painful wrestling move or cruel torture technique. But with that mindset we are like a lost pound puppy who’s intimidated by the offer of “a royal bath.”

God offers us freedom from sin, yet we fear it will limit our choices. The choices God would lead us away from are the very ones that create shame and spoil daily life. But we fear the change we want.

Like Augustine we pray, “God, make me pure… but not yet.” Like the man in Lewis’ book The Great Divorce we say we want God to kill our lust, but when he offers to do so, we fear life without it. Consider the following retelling of that fictional account:

“In The Great Divorce, C.S. Lewis tells an allegorical story about a ghost of a man afflicted by lust. Lust is incarnated in the form of a red lizard that sits on his shoulder and whispers seductively in his ear. When the man despairs about the lizard, an angel offers to kill it for him. But the fellow is torn between loving his lust and wanting it to die. He fears the death of the lust will kill him. He makes excuse after excuse to the angel, trying to keep the lizard he says he doesn’t want. (Are you starting to see yourself?) Finally the man agrees to let the angel seize and kill the lizard. The angel grasps the reptile, breaks it neck, and throws it to the ground. Once the spell of lust is broken, the ghostly man is gloriously remade into a real and solid being. And the lizard, rather than dying, is transformed into a breathtaking stallion. Weeping tears of joy and gratitude, the man mounts the horse and they soar into the heavens. In this story, C.S. Lewis shows the connection between killing lust and finding life. It feels as if destroying our lust will destroy us. But it doesn’t. And when we destroy our lustful desire, we come not to the end of desire, but to the beginning of pure desire (p. 27-28).” Joshua Harris in Sex Is Not the Problem (Lust Is)

Can you now see “the full treatment” as grace instead of a threat? If so, there will be one clear fruit – honesty. We will never be more pure than we are honest. Begin by being honest with God. You can pray without shame. God already knows. It is your silence that keeps you from God more than your sin – repentance is free for the taking, purchased by the blood of Christ.

Then be honest with a trusted Christian friend, pastor, or counselor. Speak to someone who will listen, thank you for the courage in your honesty, and look you comfortably in the eye as they walk with you as  you grow into Christ’s righteousness.

If you’re not sure what to talk about, use the seminar False Love: Overcoming Sexual Sin  from Pornography to Adultery (www.bradhambrick.com/falselove) to guide these conversations. These overview “the full treatment” of the gospel for lust. There is hope sufficient for your struggle if you will trust the God of hope (Rom. 15:13).

To see the first 100 posts in this series click here.

C.S. Lewis on “Be Ye Perfect”

by brad on December 3, 2012 in Counseling Reflection with No comments

A Counselor Reflects on Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

“I find a good many people have been bothered by what I said in the previous chapter about Our Lord’s words, ‘Be ye perfect.’ Some people seem to think this means ‘Unless you are perfect, I will not help you;’ and as we cannot be perfect, then, if He meant that, our position is hopeless. But I do not think He did mean that. I think He meant “The only help I will give is help to become perfect. You may want something less: but I will give you nothing less (p. 201).” Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

Consider the alcoholic who wants to learn to be a good father without becoming sober? What about the person caught in sexual sin who wants to learn how to be pure but resists being honest? More generically, what about all of us who want to remove the sins that interfere with our lives while protecting our “pet sins”?

This is where Jesus puts his finger and Lewis is shining the spotlight of God’s Word. In these moments we grow defensive and rebut that God is asking too much. Yet our defensiveness misses that God is judging our objectives (what we’re aiming at) more than our performance (how close we come to the target how often).

Jesus is our righteousness. He hit the bull’s eye for us. That part of our relationship is settled. What is being determined now is whether our life is still aimed at the target, or whether we are trying to negotiate with God to accept other targets? God will not help us pursue targets outside His will.

The alcoholic father feels failed by God for not empowering him to be a good father. Why wouldn’t God answer that prayer? The person in sexual sin wants to be sin-free without being relationally-real. Why does God have to be so demanding? We all want to spot-remove sin. Why won’t God accept what I’m willing to surrender for now and worry with the rest of my life later?

When we set the questions up this way, the answer begins to be self-evident. It’s like asking, “Why won’t God give hot snow, dry water, or dark light?” There is a contradiction in our request whenever we want God’s help but reject God’s character.

It would be easy to use this to imagine God as the “impossible to please coach.” But that would also be inaccurate; another attempt to blame shift from us to Him.

We are the kid who wants to hold our hands reversed on the baseball bat, dribble the basketball with two hands, or practice the high bar before we’re ready. God is the coach who says, “No, I will not allow you to practice that way. I would be reinforcing error or creating danger instead of growing and protecting you. I would rather face your anger or disappointment than that.”

If we’re holding the bat correctly, He’s happy to pitch us life lessons as we learn to hit. If we’re willing to working on dribbling with one hand, he will patiently and graciously chase the life situations we dribble off our foot. If we’ll tumble on the mat, then God will teach every life skill we need to soar in His service.

There is no limit to God’s grace, patience, forgiveness, or willingness to teach His children. However, there is also no choice in the target/objective at which God will allow His involvement to be aimed. We can have all of God if we will pursue holiness – His character and our good.

C.S. Lewis on Bad Eggs

by brad on November 26, 2012 in Counseling Reflection with No comments

A Counselor Reflects on Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

“It may be hard for an egg to turn into a bird: it would be a jolly sight harder for it to learn to fly while remaining an egg. We are like eggs at present. And you cannot go on indefinitely being just an ordinary, decent egg. We must be hatched or go bad (p. 198-199).” Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

It may be hard for a boy to become man. It may be hard for a student to become a teacher. It may be hard for a convert to become a missionary. It may be hard for a sinner to become a saint. When we begin a sentence with, “It may be hard for a…” we often get distracted from the question, “Is it necessary?”

That is the point to which Lewis is returning our attention.

What happens when an egg fails to become a bird, a boy fails to become a man, a students fails to become a teacher, a convert does not become a missionary, or a sinner does not become a saint? The glory of God’s creation rots in stagnation to the destruction of His worship and our good.

The call of God upon an egg is, “Change or perish.” Is this because God hates eggs? No. God loves eggs and wants there to be more eggs. In order for this to happen each generation of eggs must resist the temptation to be lazy, and instead become birds. As birds, every egg will multiply itself many times over.

What is the call of God upon every person? “Change or perish.” Is this because God is mean? No. God loves people and wants boys to have fathers and students to have teachers. Ultimately, God wants every lost person to have a missionary and every convert to have a discipler.

In order for this to happen each generation of people must resist the temptation to be lazy and mature in their walk with Christ. As this happens, every Christian should multiply him/herself many times over.

What is the alternative? Is it possible to go on being an egg? No. Good eggs have a lifespan. If they delay they can no longer be a “good egg.” They become good for nothing; life or food.

Similarly, adolescence has a life span. Immaturity in children is cute; in adults, it is offensive and condemnable. They can no longer be called a “good person,” innocent, or merely uninformed. They become a drain on everyone who cares for them.

What about a Christian? The Bible speaks clearly to this in Hebrews 5:11-6:6.

About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permits. For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

If you read this passage and worry about your salvation, that is like asking how much longer you can be a “good egg” before you turn into a “bad egg.” Even if you get an answer, it doesn’t help you become a bird. It merely distracts you, and, thereby, keeps you in the nest.

Whether you are a boy needing to become a man, a convert needing to be a missionary, or a sinner needing to become a saint, take the warning and stop asking questions that keep you passive (another word for immaturity). Give yourself fully to God, His Word, and His people and grow.

← Older Entries
 
UA-1304055