The Life That Sinks (Part I): The Flirt
One month ago marked the 100th anniversary of the Titanic’s disastrous journey (you can see pictures of the commemoration here). The story of the Titanic is iconic for a number of reasons, but most notably because this story embodies a potent Scripture: “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18). You see, the word Titanic actually means “of enormous strength or power,” which stems from the word “Titan,” a family of giants in Greek mythology. The Titanic was one of the largest, if not the largest, passenger ship created at the time, so it is not wonder they thought it unsinkable. Nevertheless, you know the story. After being warned about icebergs, the ship still proceeded, only to strike an iceberg and sink to the bottom of the North Atlantic. Thus, I thought it best, in lieu of the commemoration, to take a few posts to learn some lessons from the Titanic.
The Telegram
The Titanic had a great chance of sinking before it left the port. Gordon MacDonald, writing for the Leadership Journal, observes in his latest article that Bruce Ismay, the owner of the Titanic, received a telegram warning of large icebergs and fields of ice before the ship set off. Ismay testified that he did indeed receive the telegram.
Now, what is so significant about this? If Ismay had taken these warnings seriously he could’ve acted in such a way to prevent this disaster. MacDonald poses several hypothetical questions that further illustrate the point:
What if he [Ismay] had not been romanced by the claims of the ship’s designers that the Titanic was unsinkable and put the safety of the passengers ahead of all other considerations: the prestige of the company, for example, or the glamour of a speed record? What if the owner had forgotten about making impressions and made a courageous decision?
The Flirt
What can we learn from Ismay to avoid a life that sinks? Unfortunately, I find that I’m more similar to Bruce Ismay than I wish. Just as Ismay casually flirted with the truth he received in that telegram, I too flirt with the promises of God, the understanding of His true Nature, and the serious call to follow Jesus with my whole heart. Flirting is teasing. It’s uncommitted and destructive entertainment of deception. Ismay entertained deception by toying with the truth. He didn’t fully embrace it. In fact, his response toward the telegram displayed he was interested in something else entirely. He was interested in his ship’s reputation, notoriety, and prominence. So much so that he ignored a life-threatening warning.
As Jesus people, we cannot afford to flirt with the truth. Jesus claims to be the truth (John 14:6) and he doesn’t entertain flirts. He doesn’t call for half-hearted dilettantes, but whole-hearted disciples. Why? Because if the truth will set you free (John 8:32), then you cannot afford to be half-free. After all, half-freedom is really deception. And deception is conceived when we flirt with truth, rather than embrace it. We are called to be a people fully given to Him as He reveals himself in his message. Contrary to Bruce Ismay, may we heed God’s word and act on it. To flirt and tease with the truth is to welcome potential disaster and is a sure sign of a life that is sinking.
What sort of truths do you find easy to flirt with (entertain but not embrace)?
A Nation of Heretics? The Vitality of the Local Church
Sarah Pulliam Bailey interviewed Ross Douthat in the latest issue of Christianity Today. Douthat, an op-ed columnist for the New York Times and a practicing Catholic, is the author of Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics. While Douthat’s title is spicy and sure to provoke, his interview with Bailey was articulate, thoughtful, and at times – very helpful. After several questions diagnosing America’s evangelical and political posture, Bailey asked Douthat, “How can we begin to address a nation of heretics?” Douthat’s reply is worth noting:
There has been much healthy Catholic and Protestant dialogue and cooperation during the past 30 years. But ultimately the success of U.S. Christianity depends on individual churches and confessions, not on ecumenism for ecumenism’s sake. Protestants and Catholics need to recognize everything we have in common and then say we’re also going to focus on building separate effective churches.
…
For evangelicals, it means thinking more seriously about ecclesiology and what it will take to sustain Christianity across generations. Promise Keepers, Campus Crusade for Christ, and other parachurch groups have been important to evangelicalism. But “parachurch” makes sense over the long term in the context of a church. The danger for evangelicalism is becoming too parachurch without enough church. Some megachurches seem to function like parachurches rather than churches, as though everything else that’s going on is more important than the central life of the community of worship. It might be important for evangelicals to think of themselves as Presbyterians, Baptists, and so on, and recover the virtues of confessionalism, because it’s confessions, not just superstar pastors, that sustain Christianity over the long haul.
While I don’t agree that confessionalism alone will save the day, I believe Douthat’s observation and emphasis on the local church’s vitality and health is fantastic. Douthat closes the interview by emphasizing the same truth:
Finally, it’s very important for contemporary Christians to be ecumenical and to see the best in one another’s congregations, but not at the expense of having a robust, resilient internal culture within their own churches. Lewis compares his “Mere Christianity” to a hallway with doors opening into various rooms, which are the actual Christian churches. You can’t spend all your time in the hallway. You can go out into the hallway to talk, but you have to go back in the rooms to worship.
Summer Reads
