We have all heard the expression thinking outside the box, but to what degree have we actually sought to bring ourselves to do that? We indeed are creatures of habits, influenced by culture, mores, friends or acquaintances, etc. We have developed our comfort zones, having established our perimeters through interest, necessities, pressures and expectations. Our minds tend to settle in grooves that ingrain within us almost automatic responses to given situations or circumstances.

Take, for example, the process of learning to drive a car. We strain to keep ourselves focused on each step of the process. Learning rarely reaches fluency until our responses develop toward the automatic engagement and become reflexes. After we learn to the level of comfort, we rarely reflect on what we are doing, for our reflexes carry out the tasks at hand. At that level we find ourselves comfortable. We call that our comfort zone.

Many activities, responses and initiatives in life tend to become more or less automatic. Our reflexes tend to govern during the everyday, mundane routines that do not call for special focus or concentration.

This automated process serves us well and can be a great benefit in conserving mental effort. We can continue to address other concerns while, let us say, we are driving a car. As an example, our reflexes serve us well as we drive the car such that we concentrate on our conversation with other passengers in the vehicle at the same moment.

Yet, our comfort zone can also impact us negatively. Simply settling into a comfortable habit of dealing with the things at hand, of the familiar, tangible world, the here and now and relegating all else into a fog of irrelevance may seem the easiest and less risky course. However, such shortsightedness can bring us into grave conflict with the unexpected intrusions infringing upon our little world for which we are sorely unprepared.

Our teenager fits into the smug home and we assume each day that things are intact and nothing will upset our apple cart. We are so very comfortable that we habitually think inside the box. We miss signs that our sweet teenager is fading through the cracks. Somehow she is less and less present and relationships that have been taken for granted suddenly give way to a shock wave. A call from the local police station slaps us brutally with a dose of reality. Our sweet little girl has been caught with illegal possession of a controlled substance.

If a lesson can be learned from this example, we may be propelled to broaden our awareness level. We may be prodded to think outside the box! This shock wave immediately thrusts us way beyond our comfort zone and unleashes a torrent of scathing awakening to the horrors of reality. We may even experience the psychological protective mechanism of numbness produced by shock. Reality may fade into a kind of dreamlike, unreal world because we can scarcely bring ourselves to deal with awareness. In this quandary we may cry out, "No! No! This can’t be happening to me!"  Indeed, the mind struggles to deny the obvious; the pain becomes too great to deal with the jolt that our own dear little girl no longer fits within the box.

Events similar to this scenario may well be invited by our failure to think outside the box. How do we develop a habit of pushing the outer limits of our own little world and stretch our minds to probe beyond the familiar and comfortable world in which we live? Another way of expressing this notion, how do we manage to get outside ourselves?

Truly, we do well to stop where we are and take stock. Before we can get beyond our own world, beyond our own comfort zone, we must necessarily know where we are. We must know not because of the terminology and reference points of our limitations, of our own little box, but by a sense that this cannot be all there is? In other words, we must come to the place to sense a need to find fulfillment through purpose and direction that demand release from our prison, from our own little box.

But we must build upon what we do know. Right? While logic would seem to dictate such a conclusion, we need to be careful not to fall into a philosophical trap.

Rene Descartes began with self in his classic ontological argument for the existence of God. Paraphrased, his argument would go something like this:

1. I am a thinking human being. This is self-evident.
2. Since I am a human being, I am finite, which leaves me vulnerable to errors and imperfections.
3. But I have a concept of a Perfect Being Who is the source and reason for everything.
4. However, since I myself am an imperfect being, I could not have originated the concept of a Perfect Being within the framework of my own imperfection.
5. Hence, a Perfect Being must be the source of that concept, and if He is the source of that concept, He must exist.

If we accept the presuppositions upon which Rene Descartes built his case, the logic then is impeccable. But can we accept the premise, for instance, that we must begin with self? Can we know ourselves in isolation?

We must come to terms with the fact that we know ourselves only in relationship with others, first and foremost, and then as we relate to the world at large, the world of things, ideas and knowledge in general. Even the concept of perfection has no reference point of credible origin within the individual person himself as he is isolated, but must be arrived at through relationship of the world which lies beyond the individual person. True, an imperfect being cannot give rise to the notion of perfection, but in isolation he cannot even understand the concept of imperfection, much less perfection.

If indeed we do start with ourselves, self-concept is shaped and molded within the framework of society, first the family and then the broader relationships and the myriad of reflections and feedback in interactions and conflict. All these relationships point toward new horizons, to a world far beyond the boarders of our own circumference of focus and concerns.

The logical construction of Rene Descartes’ God becomes a cold, mathematical projection, a must conclusion with precision in calculation. The fact of God’s existence as a logical necessity in and of itself alone can muster as much warmth as an iceberg anchored in the frozen waters of the South Pole.

Far more important than God’s existence, God’s character and nature radiates like the brilliance of the noonday sun that warms the spring day to coax the flower buds to open in an array of rainbow colors. This kind of God can only be known in relationship, and relationship can only occur through communication and communication comes through revelation. Revelation means that God makes Himself known. If God is God, He can only be known as He enters from His infinite dimensions into the awareness of humanity. But God can never fit into our box!

Yet, the paradox of all the ages defies human reasoning. We tend to place on blinders to establish the territory that shields our own comfort zone, our own little box, and fail to launch out into the wonderful world of the God Who became one of us, Jesus Christ incarnate. But most assuredly He did not become one of us to leave us bound within our own little box, to our own way of thinking in terms of our own little world. He came to liberate us (John 8:32).

Through expressions of religious modes and structures, humanity had descended deeply into the confines of the box. Scribes and Pharisees had developed the circumferences of the box. Their religious legalism reduced the God of the universe to the image of mankind, rather than allowing God to break the restricted concepts and recreate humanity into God’s image. Had God Himself been allowed to act freely through the religious leadership, He indeed would have swept each person who trusted in Him into new and exciting dimensions in relationship with Himself.

Yet God’s purpose could not be ignored, for Christ presented through His life and teachings the Way beyond the confines of the box into dynamic release to establish a living relationship with the one true God. Jesus, therefore, walked among those embracing the counterfeit to proclaim the liberation through truth.

However, the Truth, Christ Himself, inevitably drew the fire of the Scribes and Pharisees, who sought to establish a secure haven for their own glory in the praise of men. Since reality could never support their pride and their smug retreat into the idol they worshiped, the created religion reflecting their own works, they sought vainly to trap Jesus. Indeed, if they could somehow expose Jesus as a charlatan, then they could avoid facing up to the truth of their own deception.

Luke 10:25-37 relates one such confrontation between Christ and an elite religious leader of His day. This familiar story, including the so-called parable of the Good Samaritan, illustrates the radical contrast between the legalistic mindset of the religious leaders to that of Christ’s God-centered, outward look toward people and their needs. The Scribes and Pharisees originated the attitude that humanity was made for the law and thus everyone should observe the very letter of the law (Mark 2:27 and II Corinthians 3:6). Christ Himself saw human need above the reason for the observance of the letter of the law. The law itself originated to serve mankind, not to make slaves of humanity.

Hence, the religious leaders tended to think within the box to the exclusion of any source of light beyond the box and indeed Christ became that Light beyond their little world in which they had become prisoners. Thus, the inevitable confrontations with those entrenched religious officials became occasions for Jesus to reveal the mighty power of truth, that light originating beyond the box of religious bigotry tenaciously defended by the Scribes and Pharisees.

On this particular occasion recorded in Luke’s Gospel, a lawyer, one of the spokesmen for the religious elite and an expert in the laws of the Old Testament, approached Jesus in an effort to entrap Him. He asked Jesus how he might inherit eternal life. He, no doubt, sought to entangle Christ, such that Jesus would stumble over technical aspects of the law. But Jesus very well knew the heart and intentions of this ploy. Therefore, Christ brought this expert of the law back into his own little box that He might bring true light to bear upon the issue. How does the lawyer in his expertise see the law (with respect to inheriting eternal life)? Indeed, just what law could give eternal life? The lawyer gave the only true answer: Love God with all you are and your neighbor as yourself. The answer suggests personal relationship and involvement with God and others. Christ acknowledged that this alone brings life.

In His setting forth the prime source of life, Christ reveals the cross. In the cross we see the vertical intersect the horizontal human plane. Love for God (the vertical) and love for others (the horizontal) fulfills completely the whole reason for the law. It is impossible to have the vertical relationship without the horizontal relationship and vice versa. In Christ the two meet in judgment, for sinful humanity dies to sin in the atonement and is transformed to a new life to walk in a loving relationship with God, which works out on the human plane as love and care for others.

But let us notice carefully how the lawyer, now cornered by his own admission, seeks to justify himself to secure his own little world, his own little box.

He again asked Christ a question. "And who is my neighbor?" In other words, how can I find the minimum requirement so that I meet the demands of the law to earn recognition from God for having kept the law?

This brings up a very interesting disposition. Where is the line? It reveals a desire to do as little as the law will allow, or, if it involves sins of desire, how close can I get to the line toward meeting that desire without actually crossing over to commit a sin? May I dream about those things I really would like to do all the way up to the line? Will I not be safe as long as I don’t cross over to commit the actual act?

Teenagers sometimes probe parents or other authoritative figures to seek the same thing. Is it a sin to…? or What’s wrong with…? This occupation with what limits exist suggests a desire to stretch just as close as possible to the boundaries.

However, Christ’s parable of the Good Samaritan makes clear that the right or wrong of any matter resides within the attitude, not in lines we draw. Sin is a direction, not a line to be crossed. Likewise, righteousness is a direction, not some law to bind us.

To understand human nature and this principle may well equip us to deal effectively with the teenagers and their questions. We need never be too critical of this mode of reasoning; rather, it can be vitally important to show love and seek to walk with the teens in a manner to help them discover the reality of God for themselves and how that reality can be expressed within their decisions.

Christ never directly answered the question of the lawyer with respect to who his neighbor is. Rather, He dismissed the concern as strictly irrelevant to life. He showed how one can be a neighbor. That spiritual insight always places the ball in our court

Certain characteristics of the Good Samaritan defy the philosophical and religious inside the box thinking of the religious officials of Jesus time on earth. The Jews and the Samaritans were bitter enemies. The Jews considered the Samaritans to be half-breeds, and there could be no dealings between the two groups.

Consequently, Christ’s choice of showing the Jew’s enemy, the Samaritan, to be the one who really helped the Jew in dire need, must have deeply stung the lawyer. None of the religious people who passed by offered to help their own in trouble. What was there in the law that specifically demanded that they take the time and trouble to do so? After all they had their own little world. They retreated to their own little box for security. The religious leaders who passed by could not see that love made any demands upon them whatsoever.

Not so with Jesus. He constantly provided a wide-open world outside the box. He provides light to all peoples of all ages to explore the unsearchable riches beyond the box.

Herein we have come to explore the dimensions of pushing outside the box, never to be confused with free swinging or morals dictated by the nature of our very own self-centered goals. Neither should we attach this principle to relativism, a postmodern breach of solid attachment to infinite and absolute reality. The subject of relativism has been dealt with more extensively in the Home Page presentations.

Perhaps a more frequent confusion with respect to the exploring beyond the box regards rebellion. True exploring beyond the box does not represent a reaction to the flaws within our world—within the context of where we start. Absolutely, the prod to spur us to move outside the box can indeed be the negative aspects crashing into our awareness, but to expend our lives seeking to eliminate the structure and/or content of our little box does not bring us outside our confinement. That reference point remains the same as before in such a case. We must forge beyond the stage of reaction to be guided by a star far beyond where we are. Thus, we must move beyond our little box by an awareness of a world far greater and more challenging; yet, a world far more promising to fulfill the very nature of our beings!

Every organization, every community, every country and every human system has its own unique reference point(s). To reach beyond must entail a reference point from beyond. There has to be some sort of inter-connectives to that which provides the reference.

The same principle reflects the relationship between parent(s) and teens. Unless the reference point provides an all-inclusive scope, communication cannot easily be established. The parent’s orientation may indicate deep and loving concern for perceived problems overcoming the teen, but the teen’s perception may reflect a reference point grounded in the immediate or urgent conflict that clouds his relationship with the parent(s). Thus, two distinct sets of value systems emerge, each predicated upon different reference points.

The true test cannot easily be measured in guidelines to determine which is right and which is wrong. To categorize the lines in this manner simply establishes the gulf that separates. Hence, the true measure of one’s direction must be gaged in the progress toward a reference point that encompasses both oneself and the other person in the dialogue. Even if such a reference point falls far short of the highest and most fulfilling one, a lower reference point can provide identity which may become a stepping stone to reach a higher reference point.

A scenario to consider: a teenager approaches her parents with plans to move out.

"What’s wrong, honey," the mother asks.

"Really, nothing," the daughter murmurs just above a whisper. "It’s just that… Well, I just think it’s time I get out and try my wings."

"But," the mother starts with a big sigh, "where will you live? I don’t like the idea that you’ll be by yourself. It’s dangerous."

"Not really, mom," the daughter mumbles. "I’ll be staying with a friend."

"Is she someone we know?" the mother questions, a bit of apprehension sifting through.

"I’ll be OK," the daughter insisted nervously.

"You’re not answering your mother’s question." The father interjected forcefully.

"Mom… Dad," the daughter complained, "don’t you trust me…? I mean, really, I am old enough to know a little something about what’s right for me!"

"This has nothing to do with trust or age," the father insisted. "As your parents, we are entitled to know who your friends are and we care enough for you to ask. OK?"

"No, it’s not OK," the daughter countered. "I need a little room to breathe. That’s all."

"You are still evading your mother’s question," the father pressed.

"All right! All right!" the daughter shouted. "It’s Tom, my boy friend. We love each other. We really do."

"Oh, honey," the mother cried, "you’re too young to marry!"

"It’s not about marriage," the daughter indignantly declared. "It’s just about love."

Allow us to pause at this point. Consider the implications and the possible directions the encounter can take from this juncture. How would we deal with this development?

However we choose to proceed, one thing should overshadow our efforts. We need to think outside the box. Perhaps we could reflect on Christ and determine to act from His compassion and care. How did Christ deal with the woman overtaken in sin (John 8:3-11)? Christ dealt in love, did He not? Did that make Him express approval of the woman’s sin?

First, in the case herein presented, which issue all too frequently strikes our homes, the concept of love the teen expresses may certainly fail to measure up to the highest, noblest love we embrace. Should we think to ourselves, simply because our concept of love based in agape reflects a different standard, we simply concede that the daughter is entitled to her own concept?

Or do we look at this situation as we would if the daughter found herself addicted to a potentially fatal drug?

Of course, most of us would agree that a bonding outside of marriage constitutes such instability as to disrupt the lives of the two engaging in the practice plus create a broken spirit of the family who cares and loves deeply. Further, the practice would redefine marriage as an option which can be dispensed with entirely. Hence, society would be thrown into the abyss of confusion and anarchy should this philosophy pervade our society to the degree of creating a common practice that would ignore marriage altogether.

However, while our goal may be to enlighten the daughter to these adverse effects growing out of the illicit relationship, most of us would agree that we must be careful to make the distinction between accepting and loving the teen and endorsing the choice that could destroy her and others.

While we have no gage to determine all the many avenues which could be opened in the pursuing discussion of the teen’s articulated intention, we may find some general principles to govern our approach.

As we have already noted a number of times, we need to exercise unwavering support for the teen as we seek gently to help her to understand the numerous pitfalls that open up on the course in which she proposes to indulge herself. Even if our dear, sweet darling moves into an intransigent stance, we need to keep the door open that communication continues. If necessary we need to persist for the long haul.

Also, it may be quite helpful to bring, in the spirit of love and concern, questions that could pose difficulty for the teen to answer, unrelentingly nudging her toward an awareness that her reasons and answers do not stand up to honesty and forthrightness.

If all we attempt fails, we must, on our part, at least, seek to keep the door open to possible future reconciliation and, above all, constantly keep her before the Lord in prayer.

And finally, we ourselves need to bathe our own consciousness with God awareness, seeking to understand through biblical revelation and the prompting of the Holy Spirit to exercise every avenue the Lord opens to approach the teen.

Sometimes, God must work through conflicts and adverse circumstances to reach the wayward teen and turn him homeward. Yet, we dare not place a time limit on the process, but forever keep the door open.

     6. Love

       7. Communication