In his book Outliers, best-selling author Malcolm Gladwell makes a controversial claim. He questions the idea of the “self-made man” and explains that most successful people owe some of their fortune to luck. He writes,

“People don’t rise from nothing. We do owe something to parentage and patronage. The people who stand before kings may look like they did it all by themselves. But in fact they are invariably the beneficiaries of hidden advantage and extraordinary opportunities and cultural legacies that that allow them to learn and work hard and make sense of the world in ways others cannot. It makes a difference where and when we grew up. The culture we belong to and the legacies passed down by our forebears shape the patterns of our achievement in ways we cannot begin to imagine.” (19)

As evidence of this phenomenon, Gladwell describes the “meritocracy” that is Canadian hockey. By all accounts, the most talented players succeed regardless of background. Or do they? Gladwell notes that 70% of pro hockey players are born between January and June. Only 10% between October and December. The reason for this strange statistical imbalance is simple: “the eligibility cutoff for age-class hockey is January 1. A boy who turns 10 on January 2, then, could be playing alongside someone who doesn’t turn ten until the end of the year.” This creates a huge gap in physical maturity.

As a result of this arbitrary cutoff date, the entire hockey system in Canada, beginning at a very young age, favors children who are born at the beginning of the cutoff cycle. As these players move through the system and eventually go pro, the consequence is entire teams of players who are largely born between January and April.

Gladwell goes on to cite other examples of circumstantial success, such as the numerous computer  trailblazers who all happened to be born around the same time:

Bill Gates was born in 1955

Paul Allen (co-founder of Microsoft) was born in 1953

Steve Balmer (has run Microsoft since 2000) was born in 1956

Steve Jobs was born in 1955

Eric Schmidt (who ran Novell) was born in 1955

Unlike hockey, these men did not benefit from the time of year they were born but the time in history. 1975 marked the dawn of the personal computer age. If, in 1975, you had already graduated from college and established a career, you were unlikely to have been on the cutting edge of this new technological horizon. However, if you were in college in 1975 and had access to these new computers, you were more likely to be at the right place at the right time for the coming revolution.

As you can see from the birth dates of these men, most were college-aged in 1975.

Gladwell includes many, many more examples, so I encourage you to check out the book if you’re interested in learning more. His research is a powerful reminder that many of us unknowingly benefit from the circumstances, influences and voices around us. We may never even recognize these advantages; they tend to be more apparent to those who did not receive them. We must therefore be cautious about assessing the extent of our own ability, hard work, or intelligence.

As a Christian, this research has MANY theological implications (more than I can address here).  The self-sufficient, self-made man mindset that is essential to the American Dream becomes extremely dangerous when it shapes our theology and ecclesiology, and there is one particular danger I want to explore today.

On Thursday I attended a debate between Jim Wallis and Al Mohler. The topic of the debate was whether social justice is essential to the mission of the church. Wallis defended the “yes” position and Mohler defended the “no.” What was refreshing about the debate is that both men held tightly to evangelism and social justice. Neither wanted to compromise these two crucial calls, and there was MUCH more common ground between them than there was disagreement. Wallis, however, feared that the church would discard social justice in favor of evangelism, and Mohler the reverse.

What frustrated me about the debate was not the men involved, but the audience. Audience members clearly had their favorites, which sometimes led to mumbled pot-shots against the other. This is common in debate settings, but the straw man accusations we level at those with whom we disagree is very troubling to me.

Returning to the subject of Gladwell’s book, I believe there is a temptation–as evidenced by the audience responses I just described–to assume our theological preferences are “self-made.” By “self” I am not so much referring to an individual person as a theological camp. Among various Christian traditions, there is a tendency to co-opt the theological contributions of other traditions, and then carry on as if the idea had always been ours all along.

There is little gratitude for–or even acknowledgment of–the myriad perspectives that differ from us but also contribute to our growth by identifying blind spots. In the context of Thursday’s debate, some of Mohler’s fans behaved as though Wallis’ work to promote social justice made him an enemy, and the same could be said of Wallis’ supporters. Isn’t it possible that neither position would have been quite as strong without the accountability of the other?

Clearly, this divisive spirit is evident in both liberal and conservative traditions alike. White conservative Christians decry racism yet simultaneously denigrate the black theological traditions that highlighted this problem in the first place. Liberal evangelicals spurn the narrow constraints of conservatives without affirming the theological anchor that is their commitment to Biblical orthodoxy. And evangelical women condemn the feminist theologians who worked to give them the very voice they now exercise.

While my disagreement with another might be valid, the spirit behind and expression of that disagreement betrays my ecclesiology. In 1 Corinthians 12 Paul  speaks of tremendous diversity within the church, a diversity that is mutually beneficial. His language reminds me that even those Christians with whom I disagree ardently are given to the church because I somehow need them. I am not whole without them. If not for our inter-dependence, I would swing toward one theological error and they would swing toward another.

The next time you encounter a Christian with whom you find almost no common ground, pause and ask God why you need them. Why did He include them in His church? What do they have to say that speaks into your blind spots? How have they contributed to the church in a manner that has made your theology stronger and more holistic? These questions save us from the fallacy of a self-made theology, and lead us toward an ecclesiology that is more fully Biblical.

One of the issues Ike and I have struggled with ever since we’ve been together is the question of cross-gender friendships. By “struggle” I don’t mean that we’ve wrestled with jealousy or inappropriate intimacy with someone of the opposite sex. Instead, we’ve struggled with how to articulate cross-gender friendship in a manner that is both wise, honoring to God, honoring to one another, AND honoring to our friends.

While we can both affirm that certain levels of physical and emotional intimacy between cross-gender friends are both foolish and dishonorable (let me be VERY clear about that) we are also averse to the language of fear that permeates these discussions. We have long sought after an understanding of friendship that more closely reflects the Scriptural language of Christian unity. Given the love that we are called to show one another, a love so radical that the rest of the world will know us by it (John 13:35), we have been increasingly uncomfortable with the position that pits genders against one another as threats. In Christ, we must be more!

With this struggle as a backdrop, I was pleased when a colleague of mine, Enuma Okoro, engaged this topic on Her.meneutics this week. Her post titled “We’re Just Friends. No, Really” detailed the supportive Christian friendship she has with a male friend, Andrew, who also has a girlfriend, Kate. The post incited a tremendous amount of debate, ranging from outright condemnation to unhealthy reinterpretations of her words, extending her points to an extreme that neither Enuma nor I can affirm.

I love Enuma’s writing and her call to reclaim self-discipline as an aspect of Christian relationships is a necessary one. But what particularly grabbed me about this discussion was the eventual comment of her friend, Andrew. Much of his response provided me with the answers I’ve been looking for on this messy issue. Here are a few of my favorite excerpts:

“I wonder how ‘friendship’ and ‘freedom’ are not limited by our own Christian calculations of human ‘nature’, but are instead expanded into something even deeper when we enter friendship in and through the life of Jesus? Maybe Jesus came to make us into something different; something new in the midst of our vulnerability and brokenness. Maybe in the risk of friendship, and for Kate and I–the risk of romantic love–we can pray that Jesus would surround us and take us up into his own body, God’s unrelenting love for us, where he casts out our fears.”

“If Jesus is the incarnate God–if Jesus really does promise us life in and with God–then Jesus is also a promise to us that we – just maybe – will become a sign to each other of God’s presence. That is the kind of heavy lifting that Jesus does for us in our relationships, I hope, before we step into each other’s lives at all.”

“Regular time alone is not part of my friendship with Enuma. This decision is not based on fear of the ‘what ifs’ – and certainly does not rest on any ‘Doctrine of Inevitability’. Even though I think Jesus does transform us–makes us free–I don’t think Jesus wants to take away our limits. I think he wants to live there with us, and show us that our limits are good. We only have so much life to give, and so my limits demand me to make priorities for how and to whom my emotions are given, where intimacy is fostered–which I think is partly why we make different commitments, different covenants with each other. I have freely committed to give my deepest commitment among all my relationships to Kate, even though I know I will fail her at times. That means, in one way, that I have to cut back on the amount of time–and the kinds of time–I can give to others. But, in another way, in the context of our mutual love and commitment, Kate and I have hoped for the ways in which our relationship will actually open us up to love others, to be friend to others, even better. Whatever gifts we receive through our relationship that transforms us into more faithful people, we hope to share them, knowing there will be times when we will need/want those gifts of friendship from others.”

“All that to say, we do believe that following Jesus does mean different kinds of covenants with different kinds of people—and at the same time we think following Jesus means Jesus is Lord over those covenants—and he is Lord over long-held ideas that can turn into tools of control that stop trusting in Jesus.”

Oh there is so much truth in there! And it is all about the power of Jesus!!! Our language about friendship is so often dictated by the “Doctrine of Inevitability” that Andrew names, rather than being guided by self-control, generosity, self-giving love, and courage. I also appreciate his articulation of cross-gender relationships as a different type of “covenant,” as opposed to a boundary determined by danger. In doing so, he holds onto the obligation that we hold toward everyone in our Christian community.

1 John 4:18 tells us that perfect love casts out fear. Now, that is not an “anything goes” kind of statement; we still live in a broken world. What this verse does communicate, however, is that sin and fear are no longer the final determination of our actions. Only Christ’s victory over sin is the ultimate determiner of our lives.

In an overly sexualized culture that consistently objectifies women, the manner in which Christian brothers and sisters love one another is an opportunity to stand out, which is why it is essential that we discard the worldly obsession with sex that has all but defined cross-gender friendships (When Harry Met Sally, anyone?). Yes, be wise–YES!–but exercise Christian wisdom. That is to say, be wise in a manner that is both cognizant of sin in the world, but is also an outworking of the radical love of Jesus Christ. Our friendships are meant to look different, and that begins with how we view, and how we love, one another.

This past weekend I heard a fascinating interview with a Stanford professor of psychology named Carol Dweck, who is author of the book Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Dweck studies the psychology of failure, and what she has discovered not only has implications for parenting, but has the potential to shed insight on the Christian life as well.

In the interview, Dweck explained that failure is an important part of growth. Some of the most successful individuals in history–Michael Jordan, Abraham Lincoln, and Mozart, to name a few–all experienced tremendous failures that shaped who they would later become.

Although failure can result in growth, that doesn’t mean it will. In her research, Dweck discovered that children respond to failure in two different ways, depending on the way they think. Those children who are destroyed by failure–and therefore avoid challenges–are operating out of a fixed mindset. They believe that intelligence is a fixed trait that you either have or you don’t, so they avoid situations that might reveal personal incompetence. To them, failure is a sign that they lack intelligence, so they have no resilience in the face of a mistake.

On the other hand, some young people enjoy a challenge, and Dweck contends that they operate out of a growth mindset. They understand that their intelligence can develop, so they welcome challenge and see failure as a part of growth.

What does this research mean for parents? Dweck warns that the manner in which parents praise their children can encourage either a fixed mindset or a growth mindset. Those parents who focus on praising the intelligence of the child–ie. “You’re so smart! You are brilliant!”–foster a fixed mindset. And it backfires. The children become invested in their intelligence as a part of their identity, and thus become insecure when they fail. Dweck explains,

“The self-esteem movement almost brain-washed us, the idea we can hand our children self-esteem on a platter by telling them they’re great, they’re smart, they’re talented and gifted. It doesn’t work that way. Those statements make children more fragile.”

Luckily, parents can avoid this pitfall by praising the way that children think, or the way they approach a problem. Dweck tells parents to praise the process the child is engaged in. Praise the effort, strategy, the willingness to take on hard tasks, and their persistence in the face of obstacles. This way, children develop a growth mindset, enjoy difficulty, and can keep on going when they fail. Dweck adds,

“By saying, ‘I like the way you worked on that’ or ‘I like the strategies you’re trying’ or ‘I like that you picked that hard task. You’re going to learn from it!’ Those are the things that teach children how to build and maintain their self-esteem on their own while they’re growing.”

Dweck adds that “process praise” of children between the ages of 1 and 3 will predict their mindset and desire for challenge 5 years later. However, this early window is not all that determines one’s future mindset. Dweck encouraged listeners that this kind of mindset can be adopted at any age.

I think this research is so helpful, and it makes a lot of sense. Each year I hear more and more research that counteracts much of the self-esteem movement’s strategy. Apparently unearned heaps of praise are not always good for you, at any age.

This research also highlights a couple spiritual parallels between human development and spiritual growth. In the same way that a fixed mindset inhibits intellectual growth, I inhibit my faith when I assume myself to be more spiritually mature or perfected than I actually am. And in the same way that  children can grow from failure if they so choose, I can do the same in my spiritual life. Whether my failure is spiritual, moral, or professional, failure can be an opportunity to accept my weakness and embrace God’s strength. I can either crumble and despair, or I can allow my failure to be the location of growth and God’s glory. I find that to be a great reminder for Christians, as well as parents who are sure to make a few mistakes along the way.

This week I unearthed an excerpt from a book that I had forgotten about, although I have posted it here before. I used it for a lesson I taught on Ephesians 2 Tuesday night, and it is just as powerful to me today as it was 2 years ago when I first read it. Don’t you love when you happen upon a good book or a great passage that you had forgotten about, like finding a buried treasure?

All of that to say, I want to post it again because I love it so much. It is a great heart check. It comes from Bob George’s book Classic Christianity (read it if you haven’t!!!), and I hope it will capture your imagination the way it did mine:

“Imagine yourself in a large house, in which are living both deaf and hearing people. They are all mixed together, and you can’t tell by looking who is deaf and who has hearing. Sitting in a room by himself is a man. As you watch, you notice that he is tapping his toes rhythmically and snapping his fingers in time. You know what is happening. He’s listening to music, and obviously enjoying himself. His whole body wants to respond to what his ears are receiving. There’s nothing strange or mysterious about it.

But now, let’s add a new person to the scene. One of the deaf persons opens the door and enters the room. He immediately sees the first man and walks over to him and smiles a greeting. The deaf man watches the music-lover for a few moments. ‘He sure seems to be enjoying himself,’ he thinks. ‘I think I’ll try it, too.’ So the deaf man sits next to the first man and begins to imitate him. Awkwardly and haltingly at first, he tries to snap his fingers, tap his toes, and move like the person next to him. Everybody has some sense of rhythm, whether they can hear or not. After a little practice, he deaf man is snapping and tapping in time with the first man. He even smiles a little and shrugs: ‘It’s not that much,’ he thinks, ‘but it’s okay.

Let’s now add our final factor to the story. A third man walks into the room. What does he see? Two men, apparently doing the same thing. But is there a difference? Absolutely! All the difference in the world! The first man’s actions are natural responses to the music he hears. The deaf man is only imitating those outward actions–even though he can’t hear a noise. That is the difference between real Christianity and legalism.”

Are you dancing to the music of the Gospel, or are you only imitating those around you? The latter option is ultimately hollow and unable to satisfy. Those who merely mimic without hearing the beautiful chords of God’s grace, mercy and unfailing love are doomed to a half-hearted faith. Salvation by grace through faith, not legalistic obedience or even being a “good person,” is the first and last of the gospel. Nothing more is necessary, and nothing else is capable of inspiring us to dance.

As you can probably tell, it’s been one of those weeks! Sorry I haven’t been on here since last week–life has been busy, but busy with good things.

This week I want to share an interesting tidbit from my academic research that may have implications for evangelical women. I say “may” because more research is needed, but it gives us some really interesting ideas to think about when it comes to empowering evangelical women and raising them up as thinkers and leaders.

In recent months I have studied a phenomenon called stereotype threat. This term refers to the pressure individuals feel in the classroom or workplace due to perceived stereotypes about themselves. For instance, women are sometimes stereotyped as being less capable at math, which can influence the way young girls perform in their math classes. If they believe they are worse at math, they are likely to perform worse regardless of natural ability.

Numerous studies have shown that the simple presence of a stereotype can inhibit academic performance, but it also creates an additional obstacle. If a student or employee anticipates being stereotyped, some will actively try to undermine the stereotype. For example, a businesswoman may fear being perceived as overly emotional by her male colleagues, so she intentionally minimizes her emotions and conducts herself stoically. Unfortunately, the cognitive energy she puts into combating the stereotype also inhibits her performance. Likewise, students who find themselves resisting a stereotype in a classroom setting are less able to learn and engage the subject matter.

It is remarkable and troubling that a stereotype can be so powerful. Fortunately, researchers have also looked into the best methods for breaking the power of stereotype threat, and they have discovered two primary options:

1. An authority figure publicly debunks the stereotype. In a study at Stanford, a group of men and women were administered a math test and their performances were recorded (Spencer and Steele, 1999). Then, the same math test was administered to a different group of men and women, but with one small change. This time, before the students began, the test administrator told the group that there was no previous gender discrepancy in performance on this test.  This simple statement debunking the stereotype about women and math made all the difference. The women in the second group tested better.

2. In-group role models. It is also helpful for victims of stereotype threat to see individuals from their own group (ie. women or minorities) functioning competently outside the stereotype (McIntyre, Paulson, Taylor, Morin and Lord, 2011). Having a talented female math teacher, for instance, can help dispel the myth that women are not good at math.

This research is fascinating, and it has led me to wonder about its application to evangelical women. There are many stereotypes out there about women that are both sociological and psychological, so the cycle can be tough to break. If women believe they are not capable of thinking theologically, or leading and teaching in the church effectively, then that stereotype perpetuates an unfortunate cycle in which women are hesitant to even try.

That said, there are two applications that evangelicals can take from the above research. The first applies to men. In the same way that authority figures have the power to break stereotypes with a simple word, men in the evangelical church have that power as well. That is not to say that women should not also speak out against unbiblical stereotypes, but research seems to indicate that the power group–the group that is stereotyped as being naturally gifted or authoritative in a certain area–has particular influence in this regard. If men were to tell their wives, daughters, mothers, and sisters that women can think theologically, that women should be important voices in the church, and that the church needs the contributions of these women, that message would have a tremendous, positive impact.

I should add that this influence is evident in my own life. I have a strong and brilliant dad who has always been unconditionally supportive. Although both my parents believe in me (sometimes more than they should!) my dad would seriously fight anyone who tried to stand in my way. I am no doubt the woman I am today because my dad wanted a strong daughter.

In short, men, we need you! Challenge your wives and raise strong daughters!

The second application from the above research concerns us ladies. If we want to see younger generations of women pushing themselves and using their gifts for the Kingdom of God, then we need to be doing that ourselves. Change can be slow and discouraging at times, but the more women who are out there studying, growing and leading, the more we can expect younger women to follow our example. Change begins with us.

Scholars are still exploring solutions to stereotype threat, and there are more solutions than I have mentioned here. What I especially appreciate about this research is its helpfulness in separating out truth from cultural constructions. If we are confident that all truth is God’s truth, then these studies are surely an asset to the church. As the data reveals, our assumptions about one another are sometimes based more on society than they are on God’s design for His creation.

Today I read an article that made me very sad. It was written by a woman whom I respect, though we disagree on some things. This particular article (about which I will not disclose any more details than what I have here) arrived at some conclusions that I do not share, but what disappointed me was the author’s tone. It was not loving toward other women. Going beyond disagreement, she was sarcastic and condescending. Rather than respectfully disagreeing, this usually mature woman in Christ chose to belittle women who take a different position than hers.

That behavior is wrong. It is not Christlike, and as women of the church we need to be better than that.

Whenever women back-bite in the name of theological or ideological difference, Satan wins a small victory. While our own sense of self-righteousness often justifies this behavior in our minds, mud-slinging and ridicule are always unfitting for the church. Throughout history, tremendous destruction has resulted from rifts between women, so we need to take this problem very seriously.

It wasn’t until I recently researched the Biblical examples of female friendship that I realized just how serious this issue is. Last week I spoke at the Fall Kickoff Event for the women’s ministry at my church, and I talked about the dynamics of female friendship. In particular, I examined the two types of female relationships that we see in the Bible: A competitive model of friendship, and a Christ-centered model of friendship. For the Christ-centered model I looked at Ruth and Naomi (Ruth 1), Mary and Elizabeth (Luke 1), and the women at the cross and resurrection (Matthew 27-28). Each of these female friendships is so encouraging to me, and a powerful example of the legacy we women step into. These Biblical women maximized their relationships for the Kingdom of God in bold and valiant ways.

On the flip side, Scripture also presents us with a competitive model of friendship. The relationships between Sarai and Hagar (Gen. 16), Rachel and Leah (Gen. 30), and Euodia and Syntyche (Phil. 4) all unraveled due to jealousy and competition. And as a result, each competitive model of friendship had disastrous consequences.

For instance, Rachel and Leah were sisters. Both were struggling with real issues–Rachel with infertility, and Leah with a loveless marriage. But rather than support one another through genuinely difficult problems, they opposed one another. They competed for the attention of Jacob, and became further entrenched in their own selfisheness.

In the case of Euodia and Syntyche, two leaders in the Philippian church, their fighting threatened to undermine the entire unity of the church. We don’t know the source of the problem, but we do know it had the potential to cause major division.

And finally, consider the repercussions of Sarai’s actions toward Hagar. This particular relationship is not a traditional friendship in the sense that there was a power difference between. What’s more, Sarai was obviously the transgressor. Even so, this female relationship was rife with jealousy, and we continue to feel the ripple effects of Sarai’s actions even today. The Islamic religion traces its roots back to Hagar’s son, Ishmael, and when you consider how much war and violence has transpired between Islam and the Judeo-Christian faiths, the negative consequences of one sour female relationship are inestimable.

As we look at the three Christ-centered models of friendship, we see many wonderful fruits: encouragement, perseverance, faithfulness, courage, intimacy with one another, and intimacy with God. Ruth became an ancestor of Christ, Mary was the mother of Christ, and the women at the cross and resurrection became the original evangelists, the first people to share the Good News of Christ while the disciples were still hiding in fear.

On the other hand, the three competitive models of female relationships also have fruits: selfishness, division, and destruction.

As I compared the fruits of these two models, I was struck by the distinction. The fruits of the former model are consistent with the character of Christ. The fruits of the latter model are consistent with the character of his Enemy.

The female relationships we see in Scripture are an important reminder that female conflict is not neutral. Our petty in-fighting and name-calling is not a failure to achieve an ideal; it is tangibly destructive. God can use the love and encouragement and passion of female friendships to do incredible things in the Kingdom of God, but Satan can just as easily pervert female friendship to wreak havoc.

Knowing this, I want you to pause and weigh the cost the next time you speak negatively about a sister. Consider why you are doing it, whether it is consistent with the character of Christ, whether it is loving, and whether it will build up the church or divide it. Our relationships have POWER, so we cannot take them lightly. There is something about the female heart that seems especially prone to attack women with whom we disagree or feel jealous, and that is nothing but sin. Plain and simple. We can disagree, most certainly, but watch carefully how you do it. God is not glorified by the ugliness of pot-shots and gossip, but Satan revels in it.

As far as ministry is concerned, this week was a great one for me. On Tuesday I spoke at a women’s event at my church that went incredibly well, and on Friday I delivered my first class lecture. Following each teaching opportunity, I received wonderful feedback and encouragement from those in attendance. I felt like God not only used me well, but affirmed my gifts in the process.

In light of these affirmations, one might assume that I’ve been walking on air all weekend, basking in the glow of my successes. It always feels good to be praised. Unfortunately, that couldn’t be much farther from the truth. Although I received tremendous reinforcement in one corner of my ministry, I also experienced great doubt about my calling as a writer. Critiques from editors and comparisons with those who are more successful all combined to discourage me as I wondered what I’m even doing with my life.

To some extent, those doubts about my call are always there in some form. I am constantly grappling with why I should bother writing when there are so many incredible writers out there already (not fishing for compliments here, just being honest). I often wonder why my contribution matters, or if it matters at all. I am usually able to keep those doubts in perspective and press on, but every now and then they eclipse my vision and it’s all I can see. This week has been one of those weeks.

Ironically, this crushing doubt arrived on the heels of success, but even more strange is that this combination of confidence and doubt is emerging as a pattern in my life. Throughout my ministry, praise has never served to fortify me with unshakable confidence. On the contrary, criticism is often hardest for me to handle immediately after great personal accomplishment. When success is the backdrop, disappointment hurts much, much more.

In the midst of this present funk, I’ve been thinking a lot about why self-confidence and self-doubt are always such a packaged deal. In my life, the two almost always come together. But why is that? Why has this odd couple made so many joint appearances in my life?

There are probably a number of answers to that question, one being God’s providence. Perhaps God perfectly orchestrates their pairing, such that I neither despair nor become puffed up with pride. However there is another reason that speaks to the ordering of the two–why it is self-doubt that follows self-confidence, and not the other way around–and that is idolatry.

To give you a metaphoric visual of how this dynamic plays out, imagine a strong tower in a field. That tower is God, and it is where where my heart resides. Think Rapunzel’s tower (except for the part about being trapped), tall and protected from intruders. My heart is there up top, totally safe and totally secure.

Then one day I look out the window and notice another tower, one that looks even stronger. It’s shiny and bright and promises even greater security than the safety I already enjoy. So, I descend from my position of strength, exit my strong tower, and walk through the field to find refuge in this new tower.

However as soon as I open the door to enter the tower, it vanishes. It was an illusion, a mirage. And now I find myself far from my strong tower, standing in the middle of a field, completely vulnerable to harm. When  the Enemy inevitably attacks, I am helpless to defend myself against him.

In my life, that illusory tower is personal praise.

To be clear, encouragement is a gift that I value highly. Through the uplifting words of fellow Christians, I detect the voice of my Heavenly Father. That is a good function of the Body of Christ. But there is also a temptation within encouragement. Positive feedback invites me to leave the strong tower of God and seek refuge in the praise of others.

Knowing this temptation, I suspect my self-doubt follows on the heels of self-confidence because I have temporarily abandoned my strong tower. Responding to encouragement in the wrong way, my heart surges toward this attractive alternative, only to leave me completely vulnerable when disappointment comes my way. The very same criticisms might not have hurt me so much on any other day, but on this day I am helpless before them.

My false tower is related to ministry and writing success. For others it is financial success, which is why Proverbs 23:5 warns, “Cast but a glance at riches, and they are gone, for they will surely sprout wings and fly off to the sky like an eagle.” The tower of riches is just as likely to vanish, to “sprout wings and fly away” as my own tower of praise.

For women, I think there is a particular temptation to chase after the tower of beauty. This is partially due to the fact that many women compliment another’s hair, outfit, or shoes more often than they compliment godly character. And while I whole-heartedly believe we should affirm one another’s physical beauty, outer beauty should take a firm backseat to the affirmation of Christian faithfulness.

Proverbs 18:10 tells us, “The name of the LORD is a fortified tower; the righteous run to it and are safe.” This verse reminds us that we can run to God’s tower, or we can run to another. If you’re like me and your life is marked by the unhappy marriage of self-confidence and self-doubt, remember that God doesn’t have the only tower in town. In both bad times and good, to which tower are you most likely to run?

The word “homemaker” is a term that means entirely different things to different people. For some women, it is a title to be embraced and enjoyed. For other women, they want little or nothing to do with it. For me personally, I have not given much thought to homemaking. My husband and I are both in school with no children to tend to, so “homemaking” in the traditional sense is sort of a breeze. It’s really a non-issue.

Or at least it was, until last week. As part of some reading for a class, I came across an essay that has challenged me to reconsider the practice of homemaking. More specifically, I’ve been challenged with a new understanding of this word from a Christian perspective.

In a piece titled “Religious Instruction: Homemaking,” scholar Elizabeth Caldwell examines the metaphor of homemaking as it relates to education. Caldwell is an associate dean at McCormick Theological Seminary, which is why her essay has a particular focus on education. Even so, I found her insights to be applicable on a wider scale. Quoting author Sharon Daloz Parks, she defines “homemaking” as follows:

Homemaking is “a connective, creative act of the human imagination and a primary activity of Spirit. It is the creation of forms and patterns which cultivate and shelter life itself.”

Caldwell also adds that homemaking is an especially powerful idea given how many in our culture are plagued by a “homelessness of the mind” (here quoting Sarah Little). Caldwell writes, “Adults struggle to make meaning of their lives in a world that grows increasingly more complex and violent.”

Caldwell’s insights about homemaking have tremendous power for women in the church. Especially those of us without children or spouses, for whom traditional homemaking is relatively alien to our daily lives. Consider again these words: “the creation of forms and patterns which cultivate and shelter life itself.” I love that idea! It is so easy to interpret homemaking as the literal making of a physical home, but what would it look like to help cultivate and shelter the spiritual lives of those around us?

Over the years I have written some about the Christian work of hospitality, which shares a number of parallels with homemaking. In both instances, Christians are prone to focus on a very narrow application of these principles. Those narrow applications can also undermine the very spirit of both practices.

In the interest of avoiding those pitfalls, I wonder what it would look like to be a spiritual homemaker. Many of  my neighbors and friends are wrestling with a homelessness of the mind, or a homelessness of the heart. What is the Christian response to their spiritual displacement?

While the ultimate spiritual home for every soul is to be found in Christ alone, the church and its members are certainly sign posts pointing in his direction. The Christian life and the Christian church should therefore function as echoes of the eternal home that awaits. As hard as we work on our homes, it’s important to consider whether our lives and our communities are spaces of rest, security, and belonging. Do our attitudes and our relationships have the character of our heavenly abode?

I love to think about those questions. Not only do they broaden the scope of homemaking to Kingdom proportions, but they call each one of us, male and female, parents and those without children, to consider our own role in the task of homemaking. As we help lost individuals find their way home, it is not enough merely to tell people about the character of their eternal home. We must also embody it for them.

Hi friends. Today I have a message for you that probably isn’t new. You’ve likely heard it many times before. But if you’re like me you need to hear it again and again, which is why I am sharing this message once more. I hope it is what you need to hear today.

A lot of Christians serve in their churches, attend Bible studies, sing in the choir, or lead ministry events, all while a terrible thought looms deep in the back of their minds: “If they only knew.” The Christian call is a tall order, after all, so it’s no surprise that a lot of us feel like fakes. Everyone sees the church version of your faith and the Facebook version of your family, but no one sees you arguing with your spouse, struggling with addiction, fighting an eating disorder, or succumbing to doubt. As a result, many of us feel like we’re living a double life.

If that’s you, if you feel like a fake who has everyone fooled, if you struggle with the fear that if they only knew the real you, they wouldn’t let you serve in church or even darken the doors of the building, I have two thoughts for you.

First, you’re not alone. Scripture tells us that Satan is an accuser (Rev. 12:10). He makes it his mission to point out your faults and shame you with your mistakes. He will paralyze you with guilt and humiliation. And as a result, you will hide from one of the key resources God gives us for fighting temptation: the Christian community.

If you are struggling with the shame of hypocrisy, one of the first and most important steps you can take is to tell someone. Find someone you trust, someone who will speak truth and grace and forgiveness into your heart, and confess your sin. And do it often. It’s scary, to say the least, but it also unlocks the power of Satan’s accusations. He wants you to be paralyzed in isolation. He wants you to be cut off from spiritual resources and he wants you to despair. Don’t let him. Talk to your Christian friends, and hear about the mercy and love you have in Christ.

Second, your sins are already forgiven. How many of us live as if salvation is by grace, but sanctification is by works? It is an easy trap to fall into given how many testimonies are essentially spiritual “befores” and “afters.” We assume that life is only a mess before conversion, but after conversion everything is neat and tidy. Well it’s not…..at least, it hasn’t been for me. I don’t think it was for Paul either (Rom. 7:15-19). Which is why we must constantly remember that Christ died for the sins we already committed, and the sins we have yet to commit.

These two truths are important, not simply because they combat the suffocating shame that accompanies sin, but because they set us free to serve God. That’s what’s at stake in all of this. The ultimate problem with guilt is not its effects on your self-worth, though that is indeed a negative consequence. The ultimate problem with guilt is that it fixes your eyes on yourself, taking your focus off of God and off of neighbor. In short, shame prevents you from fulfilling the two greatest commandments.

That is why, as Hebrews 12:1 explains, sin so easily entangles. We not only get caught in the act of sin, but the shame of sin as well. So while it is important to cast off sin and pursue a holy life, it is also important to cast off guilt and shame. These partners in crime have no place in the Christian life, and until we free ourselves of the very things which Christ put to death on the cross, we will be unable to “run with perseverance the race marked out for us.”

So if that’s you today, if you are wrestling with shame and guilt, confess that shame to a loving friend and cast off the guilt that has already been removed in Christ. Run the race marked out for you, and pursue God with abandon. Hear that truth today.