Nathan Birr - The Official Site
  • Home
  • Bio
  • Books
  • Inspiration
  • Contact
  • Reviews
  • Links


"...With All

My Mind"


Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'"
-Matthew 22:37 (NIV)

Contact Me

 

3/26/2014

5 Comments

 

"Nothing More Than Feelings"

Everything in culture is driven by emotions. I have to make myself happy, so I’m leaving my spouse. It feels good, so I don’t care that it violates my values. I want it, so I have to have it no matter what it costs or who it hurts. But I think emotion-driven living has also affected the church, from our attendance to the songs we sing to the time and money we give. 



Let me say that emotions are not a bad thing. God created emotions, and they are a normal part of life. And thus a very real part of our spiritual walk. Being moved by a worship song (be it a hymn or a chorus), bowing in shame when we’ve sinned before an Almighty God, sizzling with anger when someone uses that Almighty God’s name as a curse, or just getting the warm fuzzies when someone does something really nice for us are all legitimate emotional experiences. When emotions become a problem is when our spiritual welfare (and our spiritual activity) is based on them. If you go to church because you feel like worshipping God, great. What happens if you wake up on Sunday morning a little grumpy and out of sorts and feel like sleeping for another few hours? Do you still go to church, sans feelings? If you are overflowing with gratitude for what God has done in your life and you feel love for Him and are compelled to acts of Christian service, great. But what happens when you start to take Christ for granted (as we all do from time to time) and the feeling of love just isn’t that strong. Do you cease to be obedient?



Again, emotions aren’t bad. And responding to emotion isn’t always bad, assuming we are cognizant of our response and the reason for it. But if emotion is the only fuel in our vehicle, we are bound to start coasting or stop completely. Something has to be there to pick us up when emotions run out because THEY ALWAYS WILL.



So what is that something? It’s a dirty, disregarded-by-culture, shunned-by-churches, four-letter word: Duty. It is doing what you are supposed to do because it is what you are supposed to do, not because you feel like it. It is dragging yourself to church on a Sunday morning when you’d rather sleep. It is giving your tithes and offerings to God because that is what he commanded you to do, even if you’d rather spend your hard-earned cash on something else. It is giving up your time and pleasure to help someone else (Ouch! I just stepped on my own toes). It is clear why duty has been disregarded by culture. Duty gets in the way of another four-letter word, Self.



But why do so many churches and Christians seem to be shunning duty? I think it is because duty seems to conflict with appropriate emotional responses. After all, how can a good, godly person who loves Jesus ever have to drag themselves to church? Shouldn’t he or she want to be in church and be raring to go on a Sunday morning? Yes, he or she should. He or she should also live a perfectly virtuous, sinless, selfless life. But there is someone else doing some dragging (away and enticing) too.



Or take tithing? Doesn’t God say that he wants a “cheerful giver,” not one who is “reluctant or under compulsion”? (I Corinthians 9:7) Many read that as an excuse not to give if they don’t feel like it. But I don’t think Paul was talking about regular (tithes) giving. The context is in reference to a love-offering being collected for the Lord’s people, and Paul didn’t want the Corinthians to feel that they had to give a certain amount. Rather, he encouraged them to give what they could, with the reminder that generosity would be rewarded. Check out the book of Malachi to see how God felt when His people didn’t give Him the tithes He required.



Look through the rest of Scripture and you will not find, I dare say, any commands along the lines of “Obey God if and when you feel like it.” Instead you will fine phrases like “Make every effort” and “laboring” and “striving” and “I beat my body.” These seem to me like calls to duty.



Another reason that duty is shunned, in my opinion, is because our actions seem unauthentic if “the heart isn’t in it.” I would argue that it is just the opposite. Doing the right thing out of duty when the heart (emotions) doesn’t want to is the epitome of true authenticity. It is a forceful subjecting of the will. It is the essence of obedience. Duty mandates that we preach the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ, even if it isn’t popular and might not give off a good vibe. Duty suggests we sing songs that have rich theological value instead of upbeat fluff that gets us excited. Duty obligates us to stand firm in the faith and not be watered down by society and culture or by other churches that profess Christ but clearly do not hold to the Scriptures, even though it may make us unpopular, may not draw a crowd, and may not evoke good feelings. Duty is stoic. Duty is still there when the smoke clears. Duty is our anchor when emotions fail us. And I dare say we would be much better off if we (as individuals and as the church) were driven far more by duty and less by emotions.



Once again, I want to clarify that I am not against emotions (Anyone who’s ever watched Nebraska football with me knows that). Nor am I saying they don’t have a place in church or in a Christian’s spiritual life. Emotions are more than welcome. They just do not get to drive the bus. If the tune of a song or the oratorical skills of a preacher (or the impassioned plea of a blogger) gets us into an emotional lather, nothing has been accomplished but getting into a lather. Whereas if the truth expressed by song or the Biblical teaching of a preacher inspires emotions in us, then that is indeed wonderful. As the adage goes, if you can fall in love, you can fall out of love. There has to be more than feelings to make a marriage work. Similarly, if our walk with Christ (as his bride) is based just on our feelings, we may be in for a rather rocky hike.



I’ll add one more emotion that can be dangerous. Zeal. As Paul wrote, “It is good to be zealous, provided the purpose is good…” (Galatians 4:8) This article is largely motived by my zeal for the church of Jesus Christ not pandering. But I freely admit that my zeal is an emotion that can blind me, that can take me too far. So by all means, if that is the case, call me on it. If you disagree with me, let’s have a discussion and let’s look to the Scriptures as our guide.

5 Comments

Te(bow) for Two

3/6/2014

0 Comments

 
Perhaps nothing gets football fans into a bigger lather than mention of Tim Tebow. Love him or hate him, believe in him or think he’s terrible, he generates buzz. Around my part of the world, so do the Green Bay Packers. And I think the two are a perfect marriage. Why? Two-point conversions.

If you haven’t heard, the NFL is considering a rule change that would lengthen extra point attempts after touchdowns from their current length of 20 yards (the ball is snapped from the two to a holder at the 10 and 10 yards are added for the depth of the end zone) to 42 or 43 yards (with the ball snapped at the 25). Currently, extra points are so routine and kickers are so automatic that the NFL sees it as a useless play. Backing it up to 40+ would cause a drop in accuracy from almost 100% to the low to mid 80s (according to historical field goal attempts of a similar length). With less certainty of conversion, the play would become relevant again.

But so too would the two-point conversion attempt, a relatively gimmicky play only used in desperation presently. Most teams “go for two” only a handful of times a season, with a conversion percentage in the low 40s historically. But do the math. If a team scores 100 touchdowns and makes 85 extra points, they score 85 points. If they go for two and convert 43 of 100 times, they score 86 points. Suddenly, coaches would be forced to consider scrapping the extra point altogether and going for two exclusively. (On a side note, they won’t because—in my opinion—NFL coaches are, with a few exceptions, too buttoned down to do anything that isn’t the norm.)

Which brings us to Tim Tebow. Even the most diehard Tebow haters, the ones who think he has no football talent whatsoever (and who, for the record, have never watched SEC football on a Saturday afternoon) would have to admit that he is a bruising, physical runner with a determination and drive—physical, mental, and emotional—that is unmatched. From two yards out, even when you know it’s coming, a Tebow power run is hard to stop. Ask anyone from the LSU Tigers to the Miami Dolphins. I think the Packers should sign Tebow as their two-point QB, put in a package of plays that include some option, some zone read, some jump passes, and plenty of power runs. He won’t score every time, or even close. But all he has to do is score half the time and it is worth more than even a 90% accurate kicker.

So why the Packers? I’m not a dyed-in-the-wool Packer fan, but they are the home-state team, they are my Dad’s team, they are my wife’s team. So I cheer for the Packers. Second, the Packers kicker, Mason Crosby, has had some consistency issues of late. He’s a very good kicker, but he has, particularly from 40+, had his struggles. Ask a Packer fan how they’d feel if Crosby was lining up for a 43-yard extra point to tie a game late in the 4th quarter. Far from confident. Third, kicks in Green Bay are a little more difficult than in some other places. Come November, December, and January, the cold air turns the ball into a cinder block and the wind comes gusting across the plains. (Remember the playoff game against the 49ers last year?) Along with the dirt they call sod at Lambeau Field, the weather makes for kicking conditions that are far from ideal. Suddenly that 43-yard extra point is little more than a fifty-fifty proposition. And fourth, the Packers can run the ball. Not always, but when they put their minds to it, they can be quite successful. They have an emergent young tailback and a fullback with a nose for the end zone. The line is beleaguered, and rightly so at times, but they can also get in a downhill groove.

There would have to be some consideration given to late-game situations, how they affect percentages, what if Tebow gets hurt, etcetera. But look at how gimmicks such as the wildcat and the zone read temporarily threw NFL coaches into a state of confusion and chaos. Lining up and going for two every time could produce a similar response. And Tebow is a “locker room guy,” something that shouldn’t be overlooked. And given a few years of practice, maybe he develops into a pretty solid NFL quarterback. Scoff if you want. Maybe he never does, and maybe in a few years you draft the next Darren McFadden to be your 2PQB. Either way, Tebow for Two makes sense in the here and now.

Think about it. You’re a linebacker. Tebow and Eddie Lacy need 2 yards one out of two tries. Like your chances? Better yet, you’re a semi-sober(ish) Packer fan in the front row of the north end zone. You’re telling me you don’t want Tim Tebow waving his arms in the air as he runs and leaps in your direction?

0 Comments

    Archives

    April 2018
    July 2017
    February 2017
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013

    Categories

    All

    Author

    I'm a thinker. For better or worse, my mind is always running. As a writer, I also love the method of communication. I think there's an artistry to it. This blog is my way of giving my constant thinking a place to express itself artistically.

    RSS Feed

Copyright © 2022, Nathan Birr