All posts by danBhentschel

On church and football

The Superbowl is near, and much discussion and speculation is bent toward the sport. Strange creation that I am, I look at a football team and see, of all things… a church. Let me explain

The strategy

Under the control of Christ, each part of the body does its work. It supports the other parts. In that way, the body is joined and held together.

Ephesians 4:16 (NIRV)

Just as the members of a football team work together to accomplish a common purpose, the members of a church also collaborate to achieve God’s purposes.

Different football teams have different personalities and skill sets, and the composition of a team affects the team’s strategy. Are they a running team or a passing team? Offensive or defensive? Do they tend to play short or deep?

In the same way, the makeup of a congregation will drive the strategy of the church. How much do they focus on community outreach? On missions? Do they attract young families? College students? The elderly?

In order to truly be successful, a football team needs to be able to execute well even in its weak areas; to play a well-rounded game. So too, a successful church must be able to effectively reach a broad demographic, through a variety of ministries.

The head

And [the Son] is the head of the body, which is the church.

Colossians 1:18 (NIRV)

In the world of football, the team manager is the highest authority. He formulates the overall strategy and orchestrates the execution during a game. He encourages and motivates the players before the game. He celebrates with them when they win. He comforts them when they lose.

The whole team executes according to the manager’s wishes, and if they don’t then they will need to answer to him. In order to succeed as a team, they must put their trust in what he instructs them to do.

In the same way, Christ is the head of the church. He also encourages and motivates us. He celebrates our victories and comforts us in our defeats. If we don’t execute according to His instruction, we are ultimately answerable to Him.

The leader

The Holy Spirit has made you leaders over them. Be shepherds of God’s church.

Acts 20:28 (NIRV)

While a manager is the director of the team, he’s not a direct participant in the game. During a match, it’s the quarterback who calls the shots. He is in tune with the manager’s vision, and on a play-by-play basis, it is the quarterback who relays the manager’s instructions to the rest of the team.

The quarterback is in constant communication with the manager, and on the field, speaks with his authority. If anyone refuses to follow the quarterback’s leading, then that person will need to account for his actions to the manager later.

If the quarterback misrepresents the manager’s direction, then he, himself, will need to answer for his failure. If a quarterback repeatedly goes against a manager’s leading, he most likely will be removed from his position and replaced with a more compliant player.

There are no authorities except the ones God has chosen. Those who now rule have been chosen by God.

Romans 13:1 (NIRV)

A pastor is Christ’s ambassador to a church. He guides the church’s day-to-day execution, in line with Christ’s vision and instruction. The church members are free to individually seek out God’s guidance, and even encouraged to do so. But just as a the manager of a football team would never give his players conflicting instructions, God would also never give His followers conflicting instructions.

God is not a God of disorder. He is a God of peace, just as in all the churches of the Lord’s people.

I Corinthians 14:33

The team

 If the whole body were an eye, how could it hear? If the whole body were an ear, how could it smell? God has placed each part in the body just as he wanted it to be. If all the parts were the same, how could there be a body? As it is, there are many parts. But there is only one body.

I Corinthians 12:17-20

If the whole team were a quarterback, who would catch the ball? If the whole team were receivers, who would block? The quarterback is extremely important, and is arguably the star of the show, but there’s no denying that he can’t play the game by himself.

If a football team were short even a single player (ignoring the fact that it couldn’t legally continue to play) then it would be at a significant disadvantage, regardless of which position was absent. Each and every player has a position to play, with an associated role to perform. Some roles are more glamorous than others, but none is dispensable.

In a similar way, in order to be successful, a church requires a variety of roles to be competently filled. The role of pastor gets a lot of attention, but without worship leaders, sound technicians, Sunday school teachers, nursery workers, and even toilet scrubbers, the pastor would not have much of a congregation to lead.

Don’t know where you fit into the team? Not sure what role you should fill? In football, one of the least visible of roles is that of a lineman. It’s a lineman’s job to protect the quarterback, or whoever else has the ball, by blocking the opposition. In front of any successful quarterback, there is always a strong offensive line.

There is a similar role in church: the prayer warrior. Behind any successful pastor, there is always a team of strong Christians praying for God’s blessing, protection, and guidance.

Unlike football, though, church is not a spectator sport. Christ, the head, fully expects everyone in the church to be an active participant. Get off the bench and get in the game. I am so thankful for my own role in my collaborative, cohesive, successful church.

 – danBhentschel

My love / hate relationship with romance

 

I just finished listening to the first three books in The Selection series (The SelectionThe Elite, and The One) by Kiera Cass. It has some action. It has intrigue. It all takes place in a dystopian futuristic setting. But it is undeniably, above all else, a very sappy romance.

And I enjoyed it… perhaps much more than I’m willing to admit.

I’ve known for years that I enjoy romance stories. Even in high school, most of my favorite books had a strong romantic component to them. I’ve never been completely comfortable with this preference, though.

Several years ago, I was able to admit to myself that I enjoy stories with an element of romance in them much more than I enjoy stories without any romance. I still wasn’t willing to concede that I liked romances, though. I liked science fiction stories with romance in them. I liked fantasy stories with romance in them. I liked action stories with romance in them. I didn’t like romance stories.

Over the past few years, my reading and listening preferences have been slowly shifting towards more romance, and less sci-fi, fantasy, action, etc. This year I have read more than 10 books that fall very squarely in the Romance category:

  • The Selection (et al) – Romance and dystopian future
  • The Gifting – Another romance in a dystopian future
  • Loki’s Daughters – Romance and vikings
  • Between Love and Honor -Romance and history
  • The Sorcery Code – Romance and sorcerers
  • Lady of Devices – Romance and steampunk
  • Beauty – It’s the book Disney’s Beauty and the Beast was based on
  • A Lasting Impression – Romance in the Civil War era
  • How to Dance With a Duke – Regency romance
  • Blood Wager – Romance and vampires and werewolves… Oh my!

I don’t read only romance, not even mostly romance. I estimate that I read / listened to around 75-100 books this year, and of those, only the aforementioned list would be categorized as romances. Given that I read books from a very large variety of genres, though, I’d have to admit that Romance is probably one of my most frequented categories. And the ratios of romances that I read is still growing as I become more comfortable with (resigned to?) my preference.

So am I a fan of romance novels? I don’t think I’m willing to concede that just yet. Of the books listed above, only a few of them could be labeled as a typical, boy-meets-girl romance novel. Most of them fall under the category of “Romance with a twist.” For now, that’s where I’m comfortable.

Who knows. Maybe next year I’ll be reading mostly books by authors like Judith McNaught, Jude Deveraux, and Nora Roberts. (Disclosure: I already have a Nora Roberts book in my Audible queue.) I don’t think so, though. I’m pretty happy with my reading habits right now.

How much of my current reading preferences are actually my reading preferences, and how much is my preferences about my reading preferences? I wonder…

– danBhentschel

Rubio’s Rebellion

I won’t say “rebels.” These are senseless acts of defiance.  And I won’t legitimize them.

– President Snow, The Mockingjay

Our society has a romanticized view of rebellion. Rebels are the heros of many of our favorite stories, both historical and fictional. We have a deeply seated sense of right and wrong that transcends laws and governments, and it is generally understood and accepted that, as individuals, we have not only an entitlement, but even a responsibility to ensure that right is upheld when laws and governments fail to do so.

Knowing when to rebel

As a parent, I am the evil dictator of my family, and I am constantly dealing with small rebellions among my constituents (children). Needless to say, I don’t view these attempts to usurp my authority as heroic endeavors. What’s the difference between my children throwing their broccoli on the floor vs. colonists in Boston dumping tea into the ocean?

Righteous rebellion should be based on the following:

  • A clear understanding of the issues in question – Rebellion should be based on understanding, not emotion. See Breaking rules makes you seem powerful.
  • Prior failed attempts to resolve the issues diplomatically – Ensure that you have explored all avenues to attempt a diplomatic solution before resorting to rebellious acts.
  • A desire to improve life for the general population – Breaking laws for selfish motivations is not rebellion. It’s crime.
  • Unassailable moral high ground – Make sure that you are clearly in the right. Authority exists for a good reason, and should only be challenged for an equally good reason.

Rebellion and democracy

… government of the people, by the people, for the people …

– Abraham Lincoln

We can sympathize with rebellion in an autocracy, but how about in a democracy? In a pure, ideal democracy, all public policy is decided by the affected parties. Isn’t rebellion in a democracy a contradiction of terms?

There is no such thing as an ideal democracy, though. In the United States, rebellion is somewhat viewed as a part of the democratic process, as a sort of check on government to ensure that it is accurately reflecting the will of the people. Take, for example, the opt-out movement in Common Core standardized testing.

The opt-out  is an attempt by a large portion of the population to express disapproval for state and federal policies. It is generally viewed as a legitimate concern, and as an appropriate response. And the government, at least in New York state, has taken notice, and is currently engaged in formulating a response.

On the flip side, though, there is also a definite sense in the US that rebellion is inappropriate in certain circumstances.

Rubio’s rebellious attitude

So when [God’s rules and government] come into conflict, God’s rules always win.

– Presidential Candidate Sen. Marco Rubio

The US citizenship is highly conflicted on this statement. There are many who see Rubio’s words as foolish and irresponsible. In what way is Rubio’s comment different from valid rebellious sentiments? I expect that your response to this sentence hinges on your interpretation of the phrase “God’s rules”.

For me, and for a large portion of society, “God’s rules” is synonymous with “moral right”. If your interpretation falls along these lines, then Rubio’s declaration makes perfect sense. Naturally, it is correct to rebel against an immoral government. So the question is not whether or not Rubio’s goals are correct, but rather, whether or not his measures are correct.

What is moral right?

Morality is a nebulous thing. Is morality universal, or can it vary with time, geographic location, or even perspective? Is morality decided by the population, or is it independent of popular opinion?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 – Declaration of Independence

Thomas Jefferson asserts that unalienable rights exist, and lists some of them. I think that very few would argue that individuals don’t have the right to life, to liberty, or to pursue their own happiness. However, the manifestation of these basic rights is not obvious.

The right to life

The right to life is the clearest, but even that is not a simple issue. Debates abound about the death penalty, abortion, euthanasia, etc.

The right to liberty

Most civilized nations support the concept of individual liberties, but confusion arises when the liberties of one individual encroach on those of another. Hence we have speed limits, zoning ordinances, and public decency laws.

The right to pursue happiness

As with the right to liberty, the right to pursue your own happiness can encroach on others’ rights to pursue their own happiness. In fact, given the large variation in how individuals seek out happiness, I believe that this basic right is unlikely to ever be universally protected.

Universal morality

I have stated that we, as a society, seem to believe in the concept of universal morality. I have also argued that we, the human race, seem to have a very difficult time agreeing on what this universal moral code is. I believe very strongly that God’s word, the Bible, reveals to us this moral code, not in an individual verse or passage, but in study and understanding of the text, as a whole.

Morality is all about interactions, and the Bible is one of the most comprehensive studies of human interaction in existence. Its pages are full of beauty and horror, heroics and atrocities, relationships forged, and relationships broken, affecting hundreds of individuals across the span of thousands of years.

In addition, the Bible contains detailed lists of moral guidelines, along with reasons for the recommended behavior and potential consequences of ignoring the advice. The Bible relates general probabilities, and also specific examples from historical events.

We learn from history that we learn nothing from history.

 – George Bernard Shaw

I happen to agree with Rubio’s comment in that:

  • The citizens of a country have a responsibility to police the morality of their country’s laws.
  • God’s word, the Bible, is the best source for inspiration and research when attempting to discern universal morality.

– danBhentschel