What if you gave a teacher or a leader  everything they wanted?

At Fellowship, I’m teaching through a series called “I want to be one of them” and highlighting some heroes of the Christian faith.  I’ve shared the stories of George Mueller and Tony Dungy so far with two weeks left.  One of those weeks we will be talking Jonathan Edwards, one of the great pastors/theologians/authors/philosophers of 18th century New England.  As I’m reading one of his biographies, a thought came to my mind concerning learning from other people:

What would happen if I gave everything I had to mimic the teachings and example of ______________________?

Whether the “fill in the blank” for you is Jonathan Edwards, Joel Osteen, Mother Theresa, Nelson Mandela, Billy Graham, Rob bell, John Piper, Martin Luther, or Martin Luther King, what would happen if you gave them everything they wanted from you in their lives?

Now I understand the rhetoric that’s coming next from most people that we just follow Jesus, but every teacher and leader wants us to do and give something, and finding out what that is might be important.  Because we, being human, tend to be very one dimensional and like people who are like us and do not like people who are not like us.  If you like Jonathan Edwards or John Piper, you might like to have fun, but probably not when it comes to church.  If you’re into Joel or Nelson, I’m guessing you believe everything’s changing slowly into this ultimate utopia.  If mother Theresa or Martin Luther is your thing, then you want to work, work, work for the kingdom, kingdom, kingdom, and when you’re done, you have to keep going.  Clearly these are huge stereotypes and not to be made a big deal of, but the question is…

What would be the end result if you wholeheartedly followed the people you listened to?

In the 2006 Massachusetts gubernatorial elections, these 4 candidates went head-to-head-to-head-to-head against one another.  The bottom two really didn’t have a snowballs chance in Massachusetts today (89 degrees with high humidity) of winning.  The top 2 were the candidates that were in it to win it.
Kerry Healey (top right) initially had the advantage, but she was looked at as mean and known for what she was against than for what she was for.  (“I’m against crime”  “I’m against higher taxes”, etc…)  Of course these are not bad things.  In my humble opinion they’re good things.  But Deval Patrick (top left) was only known for what he was for (The fact that “Together we can!”).

These two characters do the same thing (or at least thats what they were called to do) – Preach.  However, Pat Robertson is known, most of the time anyway, for what he is against, while Joel Osteen is known for what he is for.

Even blogging is not exempt from this polarity.  Some of the blogs I read I know as ones who are for things like life and hope and love and happiness and other similar things.  Others I know he or she will write something that is going to make somebody mad, and most of the time this is on purpose.

Like it or hate it, this is the way today’s world works – if you are a leader, you are known for what you are for or what you are against.  It’s not a republican or a democrat thing, it’s a likeability thing.  Do I like you or not?  Do I agree with what you say or do I hate you for what you say?

The interesting thing about this is that probably 90% of the time the side each person lands on who is a leader is on purpose.  Yes I think Joel Osteen does what he does on purpose and has the audience he has as a result. And yes, I think Pat Robertson says some of the things he says on purpose and as a result, has the audience he has.

So if you were crafting an image of yourself, based on your personality and strengths,
Would you be for something or against something?