Christmas Reflection: Don't throw out the Baby with the Bathwater

Let's be honest... the church is a complex organism.

On one hand, Christians have been the leaders in the abolishing of slavery for centuries--but on the other hand, Christians fought to keep slavery legal and in some corners of the world still illegally own slaves.

On one hand, Christianity has produced the most important scientists and discoverers in human history (did you know Sir Isaac Newton wrote more on the topic of theology than he did on science?)--but on the other hand, we made Galileo recant, deny global warming, and fund Ken Ham's "museum."

On one hand, Christians led the way in women's suffrage--on the other, we still perpetuate patriarchy by talking about "Biblical manhood and womanhood" like there is only one right way to operate as either a man or woman in 2015.

On one hand, Christians are leaders in pacifism--but, we can't forget the crusades, the Holocaust, and the dozens of other times that Christians have played a major role in conflict.


In the past, I wanted to deny my connection to the historical evils perpetuated by the church, saying either, "well, they weren't really Christians" or "They didn't know any better, and we do better now" but in the same way that everyone has that family member that you wish wasn't, we have atrocities in our spiritual family tree.  We have incredible displays of love and care and discovery and achievement, but we also have incredible displays of selfishness and fear and failure.  The church is a complex organism.

And personally, some days I look at our world and the Christian influence on it and (like George Bailey) think maybe it would be better for everyone if the church hadn't been born.

But then I remember that the reason why the church exists is not to tip the scales of cultural value and that the sin of the church can't overwhelm the grace of her bridegroom.  So we live in this complex organism because the baby is more precious than the bathwater is putrid.  We live in this complex organism because Jesus liberates us from slavery to sin and death.  We live in this complex organism because God is our father and the church... is our mother.

Scattered Thoughts in the Midst of Our Chaos

Let me start by saying that I find conversations about the intersection of race and society fascinating, but rarely do I say anything in public because, well, I am the face of privilege.  I am a white, male, married, Christian, son of two educated people.  I may not have started the race in the front row, but I am not very far back.  And because of the situation I was born into, I have an incredibly difficult time imagining what life is like for someone like Michael Brown or Eric Garner.  I have never believed that the police would treat me unfairly, and even when I have broken the law, never once have I feared for my life.

But, if we are to believe the shared experiences of our brothers and sisters of color, that is the reality for nearly all of them living in this country.  In seminary I remember my friend Vincent telling me that if he dressed the way I did (hooded sweat shirt, blue jeans, and a Cincinnati Reds hat) and walked through a parking lot, he would hear car doors lock as he walked by, and the minute he entered the mall, security would be keeping an eye on him.  I told him that I didn't believe him and when he exagerates he loses his credibility.  But then Marty and John and Deion started telling their own stories of similar events where they were stopped by the police because they "looked suspicious" and followed around stores because they "looked like they were gonna steal something."  One of them told the story of spending the night in a holding cell after jay-walking.

I simply cannot understand the world that people of color occupy, because even though we may be neighbors, the way society interacts with us is fundamentally different.  I cannot understand how the events in Ferguson led to Michael Brown's death, because that would never happen in the world of privilege.  

One time, in college, when I was selling security systems door-to-door in a secluded, wealthy community, I was stopped by the police for "looking suspicious," and in fairness, I did look suspicious.  But the policeman never raised his voice, he never acted in a way that was threatening; he simply pulled beside me, rolled down his window and asked what I was doing.  He was satisfied with my answer and drove away.  When I think back on that interaction, I thank God that I am white.  

Had I been black, I very likely could have found myself cuffed and sitting in the grass (a recurring theme I hear in stories) while the officer ran my information through the computer, called my supervisor, and made sure I was doing what I said I was doing. 

The more stories I hear coming out of the black community, the more convinced I am that in these most recent non-indictments and in the many that preceded them. our system is failing at the most fundamental level to uphold due process.  

The most fundamental piece of due process is that those with power should not have the advantage over those without it.  For example, the Heisman trophy winning quarterback at your college shouldn't be protected when they violate the rights of an ordinary student.  Rather, in order for the justice system to work (at any level) we must error on the side of the powerless.  This doesn't mean that the powerful are always found to be in the wrong or that they are always convicted, however, it should mean that the victim who is harmed at the hands of the powerful is given every opportunity to seek and receive justice.

When a policeman kills a black child or when a politician is accused of abusing his intern or when a clergy-person is accused of embezzling money from the offering plate they must endure the greatest levels of scrutiny, or the process doesn't work.  If we don't indict the policeman or investigate the pastor, then we are allowing their privilege to short-circuit the system.  And as Christians, we must error on the side of the powerless.  

Now, I wasn't there when Wilson shot Brown.  I wasn't there when the Beavercreek PD shot Crawford.  I wasn't there when Damico choked out Garner.  And I wasn't there when the Cleveland cops shot Rice.  I don't know the totality of training, policy, and mindset that led to the actions taken by law enforcement officials which resulted in the death of four, unarmed black men.  I don't know what previous events led the officers to believe that they were doing the right thing.  And because the grand juries erred on the side of the powerful, none of us ever will.  

Vision starts with 'Why'

Every church I have ever been a part of has a mission statement.  At Marysville, our mission statement was, "To build and be the body of Christ."  At Trinity Evangelical it was, "To know Christ and make him known."  At Kansas and St. Paul's we used the standard UMC statement, "To make disciples for the transformation of the World" and now at Sulphur Grove, our mission statement is, "to grow disciples, to live and share God's love."

And all of these are noble statements of purpose, describing what we do; however, mission statements fail to build robust consensus for the same reason that most fail to serve as a north star for determining the direction of an organization.  Mission statements fail, all to often, because they vaguely describe what we do, but they do not describe why we do it.

Here recently, in an attempt to guard against breaking my four month old son, I have found myself reading books related to neuroscience and human personality.  And the consensus of the scientific community (as it relates to human interaction) is that our brains do not operate as a single functioning unit, but rather that our pre-frontal cortex (PFC) is the emoting desire center of the brain, while the frontal cortex (FC) is responsible for higher functions like language and reasoning.  The PFC is hard-wired to survive by releasing positive emotion chemicals when we are interacting with people who talk like us, walk like us, believe like us, look like us, etc.  If you are like me, and grew up in a community with very little diversity, and couldn't understand why your minority best friend in elementary school spent less time with you and more time with other minorities when you got to high school where there were other minorities, this is one reason why.  Our brains are hard wired to seek out sameness as a survival tactic.  So while reason (done in the FC) might tell us that our shared history is what is truly important, and we should still be the best of friends, the overwhelming chemical response put out by our PFC means that, in most cases, our friend if given the opportunity to be friends with others who look more like her, sound more like her, believe more like her, etcetera--she will take it.  Now, this is a general idea that requires much greater nuance in the real world, and no situation can be seen as strictly determined by brain chemistry.  The intersection of nature and nurture can lead to a plethora of outcomes; but, in general, scientists agree that the way our PFC works is to draw us in to people who look like us, believe like us, and talk like us.  We want to agree with those who our PFC tells us are our kind of people.

So what does this mean for vision casting?

If you want to build consensus, if you want the vision to be communicated powerfully, it all comes back to the community's shared belief.  Don't tell me the things that you do, tell me the belief that explains why you do it.  So your mission is to make disciples, that's nice.  Why?  What is so great about disciples?  We have these mission statements that are so obtuse and so dependent upon everyone who hears them making the right assumptions about our motivating beliefs that they have no real meaning outside of the mental exercises performed by our frontal cortex.

If you want to powerfully cast the vision for God's preferred future, speak to the heart (or at least the pre-frontal cortex).  Don't tell me what you are going to do or how you are going to do it, tell me why!

Here is an example of how umc.org describes itself:

We are the United Methodist Church.  We make disciples for the transformation of the world.
We have 12.5 million members who are committed to being a global, connectional, inclusive, scriptural, wesleyan, missional, ecumenical, socially just church.

Not very inspiring is it...

But here is how we might better cast the vision for what it is to be United Methodist:

We believe that knowing Christ and being filled with the Holy Spirit transforms individuals, families, communities and our world.
There are 12.5 million of us who are committed to being global, connectional, inclusive, scriptural, wesleyan, missional, ecumencial, and socially just.
We make disciples for the transformation of the world.  We are the United Methodist Church.

What do you think?  Do you respond to the second vision for United Methodism more strongly than the first?


For a more detailed look at this idea, read Simon Sinek's, Start with Why.

The Cost of Faking Extroversion

This past week, I began reading Susan Cain's Quiet.  It is an exploration of the ways that introverts can succeed in an extroverted world by embracing their introversion.  As a life-long introvert that has spent most of his life trying to approximate extroversion, I have found her writing to be a cool drink of life giving water, and when I finish the book, I will likely review it.

In an early chapter, she talks about Tony Robbins, the self-help guru who as Jack Black famously quipped while shaking his hand, "it's like shaking a bunch of bananas" and she writes that "[Tony] told us at the start of the seminar, 'You don't have to be an extrovert to feel alive...' But it seems, according to Tony, that you'd better act like one if you don't want to flub the sales call and watch your family die like pigs in hell" (39).

Since reading this, I have been reflecting on my own struggle with faking extroversion and I would like to share with you some of my thoughts.

Thought 1: Faking extroversion made dating incredibly painful

The other night, I was talking with Cindy and I shared with her that one of the reasons I love her and wanted to marry her was that she was the first non-family member that I could embrace introversion in front of without the fear that she wouldn't like me anymore.  The reality is that few things suck more for (most) introverts than dating.  Consider the expectations given to us by Hollywood for what dating should look like: A charming, flirtatious hunk uses his best line on a beautiful, clever woman who knows how to deflect the first line in such a way that he comes back with a new one.  Eventually, (some times in as short as 5 minutes) the magnetic, outgoing man and the clever, confident woman are overwhelmed with their interpersonal energy and bada bing, bada boom=love.  If you don't believe me, I challenge you to find a romanticish movie where the male protagonist is an introvert (hint: I can only name two).

So for those of us who find playful, flirtatious banter exhausting, these expectations are overwhelming.  And often-times result in awkward exchanges as we try to pretend to be Don Juan, when our natural response is the exact opposite.

Thought 2: Faking extroversion leads us to say stupid stuff

I think the best way to explain introversion is to say that we are energized by internal stimuli (we gain far more satisfaction from the debates that rage within our own mind than any debate we may have with another person) and that we process internally rather than externally (you will rarely hear an introvert say the words, "I am thinking out loud")

Therefore, when we try to 'think out loud' in the attempt to approximate extroversion we are probably going to say something really foolish, because we don't practice thinking out loud and the on the fly filters developed by extroverts are underdeveloped for us.  Think about it this way, when most extroverts become inebriated, their ability to filter is greatly diminished and they say things that 99 times out of 100 are filtered and left unsaid.  For introverts, everytime we try to think out loud, we run the risk of saying the things that extroverts only say when drunk.

Thought 3: Faking extroversion is expected in American culture

Going back to the thinking about the protagonists of love stories, now broaden the scope of the study, how often is the protagonist of a given story a larger than life, life of the party, alpha who wins the hearts of everyone around them with charisma and cunning?  Go ahead, try to think of one, my guess is that for every 1 protagonist that doesn't fit that description, you will be able to come up with 10 who do.  The heroes of American pop-culture, business culture, church culture, political culture, etc. are predominantly extroverted, and our children learn from a young age that to be a hero, one must fill a room, be glad to be in that room, shake every hand, kiss every baby, and want to do it all over again when we are done.

The reality is that for introverts, parties are exhausting.  Which doesn't necessarily mean we dislike being there, but we have to budget our emotional energy.  For example, I love being in church on Sunday mornings, I love hearing the stories of how God's grace is being extended in the lives of people who I love; but, by noon, I am emotionally spent and need to get home, sit in the recliner and recharge.

A few months back, I began tracking how many hours in a given week I did activities that required people skills more often found in extroverts, and I found that after 12 hours of meetings, church, meeting new people, being in public, working in a team, and other energy sapping activities, my productivity, enthusiasm, and overall performance plummets.  I encourage you to look at your schedule and see how long it would take for you to reach 12 emotional energy sapping hours, my guess is that you would be surprised how quickly you get there, I know I was.  In large part this is because in the US, most places of work operate on the assumption that working in a space that is abuzz with the activity of coworkers will increase your own productivity and that multiple weekly meetings are not only helpful but necessary.  My boss, Tom, describes his own introversion like this, "I am an introvert, which means I don't need someone watching me to get my work done."

Thought 4: Most employers want an introvert, but we interview so poorly they don't realize it

If given the choice of an interview or a standardized test, I would take the standardized test every single time.  Interviews are terrible.  They begin by entering a room with one to five people you don't know (strike one), who will be asking questions some of which you aren't prepared to answer (strike two), all with the underlying assumption that you must produce magnetism in the first 10 seconds to make a good first impression (strike three, and we're out).

What if employers were to send out a packet with case studies that required applicants to consider a problem prevalent in a given work environment, and then write out their response?  Would this not be a far more helpful strategy in finding employees that would add value to your company, church, school, or municipality?  In the church, we produce pages and pages of written work for ordination, which can all be undone with a bad interview... what sense does that make? To give privilege to a 40 minute interview over a two pound stack of documents, recommendations, and performance reviews, that doesn't make any sense.


Now this list is far from exhaustive, but hopefully it will start the conversation.  What do you think?

A Foolish Tweet from an Intelligent Man

This morning, as I was making my wife breakfast, I read this tweet from astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson, "If your belief system is not founded in an objective reality, you should not be making decisions that affect other people." As a modern hero of humanism, this sort of rhetoric is often used by Tyson and other non-theists to claim intellectual high ground against theists of every stripe. However, as is the case in every claim that can be made in less than 140 characters, this line of thinking has some serious problems. For starters, there is not a person living on the planet today, who experiences "objective reality." Each of us are bound by our situatedness and our intuition. To deny that human existence is inherently subjective either shows an incredible lack of self-awareness or unbridled arrogance. Now, it would be one thing to say that those who make decisions that affect others should be capable of making well-reasoned decisions based on the evidence that is available to them, but I don't think this is what Tyson is saying. That being said, he hints that their may be a plurality of objective realities. Which means that best case scenario, Tyson is saying that 'if your belief system is not founded in well-reasoned claims about the nature of reality given the evidence that you have available to you, you should not be making decisions that affect other people.' But, I don't think that is what he is trying to say.

Finding the real in the midst of what my TV shows me of Israel

My friend Craig Miller posted his thoughts earlier today on the current news coming out of Israel, and as I was reading I thought back to my own experience of Israel this past January.  And I should start by saying that life in the strip of land between the Mediterranean Ocean and the Jordan River is far more complex than American news sources are capable of reporting.  The narrative that you and I hear coming from every major news source is that there are two essentially two sides that are separated by culture and religion and cannot come to terms for sustained peace because of these differences... this narrative is incomplete and if we try to make value judgments with this as our baseline understanding of the conflict, we will almost surely be in error.

When Cindy and I were there, we were instructed by Rabbi Brad Hirschfield to do what we could to suspend judgment as we heard the stories of the people.  He encouraged us to assume that every person we talked to was being honest and that each of them were describing their interpretation of the reality of their lives.  He said that if we went into our experience looking for what is true we would leave frustrated, but rather if we listened for the real, we would have a robust, enlightening experience.  I listened to his advice and these are the realities that I remember from my trip to Israel.

The Main-line Ben Gurion reality:
In the early 20th Century, Mayor Meir rode his mare, Mayer, into Tel Aviv and started a colony for displaced, discouraged, disenfranchised Jews from across Europe.  One of the early founders of this city was a man named David Greene.  Greene would later be known as Ben Gurion and when the British left the land in 1948, Ben Gurion, along with the first Israeli paliament declared that Israel would be a Jewish state in the Holy Land.  Within 24 hours, all the surrounding nations attacked, but by God's grace Israel survived.  In the year's following the Israeli government has acted in the best interest of Jews around the world providing a safe place to live to a people group who have been persecuted continuously for 3,000 years.  While Israel isn't perfect (for instance, Sephardic Jews were discriminated against in the 80s and 90s), it offers greater freedom, safety, and prosperity than the other states in the region and has the only functional, quality centralized health care system in the world.

The Palestinian refugee camp reality:
In 1948, the Jews removed the locals from their homes, gave them a tent, and put them in open air prisons promising that in two weeks they would take them back to their homes.  It has been 65 years, and they are still waiting to go back to their home.  In the last 65 years the refugees endure daily dehumanization from IDF guards and have developed a strong disdain for their jailers.  The camps are overcrowded, but if someone tries to build on empty land beyond the boundaries of the camp, their home is demolished by bulldozers in the night.

The National Religious Party Reality:
Forget the last century, three millenia ago, God gave them the land and by God they are going to live in it.  Settlements are not illegal, but rather the will of God who promised the land to the children of Abraham.  With each settlement, God's will is coming to pass.  (Some of the more hardliners would call for the expulsion of all non-Jews from any land that was Israel/Judah during the time of the unified kingdom)

The Bedouin reality:
In the last 40 years, the Israeli government has bulldozed 80% of their communities, and even now the communities that are still intact have rules which forbid putting permanent roofs on homes, installing sewage systems, and other essentials for thriving.

The Eritrean and Sudanese refugee reality:
As many as 100,000 African refugees have come to Israel looking for a safe place to work and live, while their country is embattled in bloody civil wars.  They, in union with human rights groups are asking for work visas so that they can enjoy the privileges of being documented workers.

The Conscientious Objector reality:
At 18 Israeli citizens (with some exceptions) are expected to join the Israeli Defense Force.  Some of these soldiers after seeing the inequity and oppression of the Palestinians conscientiously object to the way in which their own government has governed its neighbors in the Holy Land.

The bartender at our hotel's reality:
Palestinians (he was one) are stupid.  The only way they can live in prosperity is to come to grips with the reality that the Jews are here to stay.  Learn the rules and play by them, quit dreaming of the way things were 70 years ago, because the world is a different place.  Educate yourself and learn how to live in the Jewish world.

These are just thumbnail sketches of the realities that I can remember.  What I learned is that I need to be really slow in judging who is right and wrong, understanding that such value judgments run the risk of dehumanizing both sides.  

Focusing on Virtue

One of my prayers for my son, Ben, is that he would grow up to live a virtuous life.  Virtue is not a particularly popular topic in today's world, as a word it smacks of an antiquated bygone era, but virtue was once the goal of which all great people aspired.  Virtue is a process not a result.  Virtue is a way of being, not a bottom line.

In the modern world, we measure success by how many figures are in our salaries, how many people attend our events, our winning percentage, batting average, and state test scores.  However, the problem with measuring success in this way is that it is incredibly difficult to replicate results.  How often have we seen a person with promise be promoted beyond their capacity?  How often have we seen a one-hit-wonder?  How often do we see fast-starters burn out in the long run?

John Wooden says that when he was younger, he wanted to be in better shape than anyone else he played against, but as he matured he saw the foolishness of this thinking.  His goal should never be rooted in being better than another, but rather in being the best he possibly can be.  Wooden says, "Success is peace of mind which is a direct result of self-satisfaction in knowing that you made the effort to become the best of which you are capable."  This is virtue.  Virtue is the intentional, internal choices to become the best of which you are capable.

David Watson explains, "When we are listening, giving fair consideration to arguments, representing the positions of others accurately, thinking rigorously, and speaking in ways that are logical and coherent, we exhibit intellectual virtue. When we do otherwise, we exhibit intellectual vice."  Notice, that intellectual virtue is not a measurement of truthfulness or falsehood of one's stated position, but rather a measurement of the process that leads one to believe, and virtuously express those beliefs.

Someday, in the relatively near future, Ben will begin to develop the ability to communicate.  And I pray that as he begins to compete on courts, diamonds, rinks, and fields and as he begins to bring home schoolwork and as we talk about what he learned in Sunday School after church, that his mother and I can effectively nurture virtue within him. so that the only person he ever judges himself against is his best possible self, and the way we score each performance is focused on his process rather than the outcome.