According to aRasmussen Poll, Comedy Central talk show host Stephen Colbert's satirical campaign for the White House has more support among young voters than does either GOP candidate (Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani) in a hypothetical match up against Hillary Clinton.
It is a sad day when a full 13% of American likely voters would select a comedic television character over sitting and former United States Senators and the Mayor of the largest U.S. city in an election for the presidency of the United States. This, I think, is more of a reflection on the candidates, however, than it is on the American people. These poll respondents were probably just being honest with themselves. If I'm going to vote for a non-adult candidate, then I might as well support the one who is out front and honest about his non-adultness.
Is it going to take electing Stephen Colbert or Bugs Bunny to the White House before we decide it is time for some real statesmen to run for public office?
373 Days until the election. Will we have an adult candidate?
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Wanted: Adults
I have officially decided that my Theme Movie for the 2008 Election, and for American Culture writ large shall be, until further notice, Peter Pan. To begin our new theme, here are excerpts from "I Won't Grow Up," Peter Pan's personal theme song.
If growing up means
It would be beneath my dignity to climb a tree,
I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up
Not me!
I won't grow up,
I don't want to wear a tie.
And a serious expression
In the middle of July.
And if it means I must prepare
To shoulder burdens with a worried air,
I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up
Never gonna be a man,
I won't!
Like to see somebody try
And make me.
Anyone who wants to try
And make me turn into a man,
Catch me if you can.
I won't grow up.
Not a penny will I pinch.
I will never grow a mustache,
Or a fraction of an inch.
'Cause growing up is awfuller
Than all the awful things that ever were.
I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up,
I won't grow up!
We won't grow up!
We will never grow a day
And if someone tries to make it
We will simply run away
And Never Land will always be
The home of beauty and joy
And neverty
I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up
Not me!
----
It dawned on me this morning, halfway through my second cup of coffee, the fundamental problem characterizing most of our cultural, social, and political malaise: we are quickly running out of adults. I do not know the source of these characteristics, but here is what Wikipedia lists as "qualities that symbolize adultness in most cultures."
* Self-control - restraint, emotional control.
* Stability - stable personality, strength.
* Independence - ability to self-regulate.
* Seriousness - ability to deal with life in a serious manner.
* Responsibility - accountability, commitment and reliability.
* Method/Tact - ability to think ahead and plan for the future, patience.
* Endurance - ability and willingness to cope with difficulties that present themselves.
* Experience - breadth of mind, understanding.
* Objectivity - perspective and realism.
Come back from science fiction land for a minute now, and hang your head with me in lamentation of the fact that it is difficult to find many people who have reached the "age of majority," who display even half of these characteristics on a consistent and daily basis. If we examine the world of politics, for example, we find that our political officeholders (I would not deign to denigrate the word "leader" by using it to describe our current set of officeholders) is particularly severely lacking in Self-control, Independence, Responsibility, Method/Tact, Experience, Objectivity. And the others are just a wash, at best.
Our churches have largely become either empty or glorified social clubs. We have prostitute preachers who use their silver tongue to keep the big offering checks rolling in. We have a laity suffering from the most grotesque form of intellectual and spiritual laziness. Many denominations are fighting internal discordant battles over tangential issues.
Our schools are run by Educrats who were indoctrinated by the so-called "Schools of Education" to espouse feel-good nonsense that is handicapping our children in a global marketplace. Our students run amok because there are no adults at home, and there are fewer and fewer adults running the schools (Educrats notoriously lack the objectivity/realism quality listed above), and we are approaching an almost Lord-of-the-Flies-esque educational polity whose feeble pillars are collapsing under the weight of the fat bodied obesity of our thin-minded children.
Business, the last haven of adulthood, is suffering the consequences. The economy cannot sustain itself, in the long-run, with a nation of children. The free market itself breeds adults. Socialism and the Nanny State perpetuates childishness. It has become popular to talk about the "overcompensation" of CEOs in this country, and to talk about business as being "uncaring" and "cut-throat." Some of these things may be true in certain circumstances, but I would argue that by and large, business is just being adult. Google takes particularly good care of its employees, provides them lavish benefits, etc. But they subscribe to the philosophy, I'm sure of "To whom much is given, much is also required." Google employees work long hours, and spend the vast majority of their waking time at work. And if they didn't, they would be replaced.
Adulthood does not meant stuffiness (thank God!), but it does mean having to grow up. It doesn't mean having to wear a tie in July, but it does mean taking reality as it comes, and being a responsible agent in a world of problems. The old cliche saying "you can't teach an old dog new tricks," is probably true in our present circumstance. The Baby Boomers spent too long being children. They were, in fact, the first generation of The Lost Boys. They rebelled against their parents' conservatism, and replaced it with a vacuous notion of "freedom." The eschewed the rules, but the rules came back to haunt them. They worshiped youth, and now they are old. But they are not mature. As Kipling said, using the Gods of the Copybook Headings as a metaphor for wisdom and, perhaps we could even say 'adultness,'
"The Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of man.
There are only four things certain since social progress began:
That the dog returns to his vomit, and the sow returns to her mire,
And the burnt fool's bandaged finger goes wobbling back to the fire.
And as soon as this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins;
When all men are paid for existing, and no man must pay for his sins.
As surely as water will wet us, as surely as fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return."
As a member of Generation Y, I know that the only person for whom I can take responsibility is myself, and vicariously, for my generation. I can point out the problems with past generations, but I cannot preach to them, and I am highly unlikely to change them. But I can take responsibility for myself, and for being a voice in the wilderness to my own people, the 20-somethings and bordering-on-30-somethings with whom I went to kindergarten, elementary school, high school, and college, and with whom I am now working in my everyday life, who I meet at Starbucks or the local wine bar.
We have to be adults, even if nobody else wants to. The world needs us, and it needs us now.
If growing up means
It would be beneath my dignity to climb a tree,
I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up
Not me!
I won't grow up,
I don't want to wear a tie.
And a serious expression
In the middle of July.
And if it means I must prepare
To shoulder burdens with a worried air,
I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up
Never gonna be a man,
I won't!
Like to see somebody try
And make me.
Anyone who wants to try
And make me turn into a man,
Catch me if you can.
I won't grow up.
Not a penny will I pinch.
I will never grow a mustache,
Or a fraction of an inch.
'Cause growing up is awfuller
Than all the awful things that ever were.
I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up,
I won't grow up!
We won't grow up!
We will never grow a day
And if someone tries to make it
We will simply run away
And Never Land will always be
The home of beauty and joy
And neverty
I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up
Not me!
----
It dawned on me this morning, halfway through my second cup of coffee, the fundamental problem characterizing most of our cultural, social, and political malaise: we are quickly running out of adults. I do not know the source of these characteristics, but here is what Wikipedia lists as "qualities that symbolize adultness in most cultures."
* Self-control - restraint, emotional control.
* Stability - stable personality, strength.
* Independence - ability to self-regulate.
* Seriousness - ability to deal with life in a serious manner.
* Responsibility - accountability, commitment and reliability.
* Method/Tact - ability to think ahead and plan for the future, patience.
* Endurance - ability and willingness to cope with difficulties that present themselves.
* Experience - breadth of mind, understanding.
* Objectivity - perspective and realism.
Come back from science fiction land for a minute now, and hang your head with me in lamentation of the fact that it is difficult to find many people who have reached the "age of majority," who display even half of these characteristics on a consistent and daily basis. If we examine the world of politics, for example, we find that our political officeholders (I would not deign to denigrate the word "leader" by using it to describe our current set of officeholders) is particularly severely lacking in Self-control, Independence, Responsibility, Method/Tact, Experience, Objectivity. And the others are just a wash, at best.
Our churches have largely become either empty or glorified social clubs. We have prostitute preachers who use their silver tongue to keep the big offering checks rolling in. We have a laity suffering from the most grotesque form of intellectual and spiritual laziness. Many denominations are fighting internal discordant battles over tangential issues.
Our schools are run by Educrats who were indoctrinated by the so-called "Schools of Education" to espouse feel-good nonsense that is handicapping our children in a global marketplace. Our students run amok because there are no adults at home, and there are fewer and fewer adults running the schools (Educrats notoriously lack the objectivity/realism quality listed above), and we are approaching an almost Lord-of-the-Flies-esque educational polity whose feeble pillars are collapsing under the weight of the fat bodied obesity of our thin-minded children.
Business, the last haven of adulthood, is suffering the consequences. The economy cannot sustain itself, in the long-run, with a nation of children. The free market itself breeds adults. Socialism and the Nanny State perpetuates childishness. It has become popular to talk about the "overcompensation" of CEOs in this country, and to talk about business as being "uncaring" and "cut-throat." Some of these things may be true in certain circumstances, but I would argue that by and large, business is just being adult. Google takes particularly good care of its employees, provides them lavish benefits, etc. But they subscribe to the philosophy, I'm sure of "To whom much is given, much is also required." Google employees work long hours, and spend the vast majority of their waking time at work. And if they didn't, they would be replaced.
Adulthood does not meant stuffiness (thank God!), but it does mean having to grow up. It doesn't mean having to wear a tie in July, but it does mean taking reality as it comes, and being a responsible agent in a world of problems. The old cliche saying "you can't teach an old dog new tricks," is probably true in our present circumstance. The Baby Boomers spent too long being children. They were, in fact, the first generation of The Lost Boys. They rebelled against their parents' conservatism, and replaced it with a vacuous notion of "freedom." The eschewed the rules, but the rules came back to haunt them. They worshiped youth, and now they are old. But they are not mature. As Kipling said, using the Gods of the Copybook Headings as a metaphor for wisdom and, perhaps we could even say 'adultness,'
"The Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of man.
There are only four things certain since social progress began:
That the dog returns to his vomit, and the sow returns to her mire,
And the burnt fool's bandaged finger goes wobbling back to the fire.
And as soon as this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins;
When all men are paid for existing, and no man must pay for his sins.
As surely as water will wet us, as surely as fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return."
As a member of Generation Y, I know that the only person for whom I can take responsibility is myself, and vicariously, for my generation. I can point out the problems with past generations, but I cannot preach to them, and I am highly unlikely to change them. But I can take responsibility for myself, and for being a voice in the wilderness to my own people, the 20-somethings and bordering-on-30-somethings with whom I went to kindergarten, elementary school, high school, and college, and with whom I am now working in my everyday life, who I meet at Starbucks or the local wine bar.
We have to be adults, even if nobody else wants to. The world needs us, and it needs us now.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
What Have We Done Today?
We shall do much in the years to come,
But what have we done today?
We shall give out gold in a princely sum,
But what did we give today?
We shall lift the heart and dry the tear,
We shall plant a hope in the place of fear,
We shall speak the words of love and cheer,
But what did we speak today?
We shall be so kind in the after while,
But what have we done today?
We shall bring to each lonely life a smile,
But what have we brought today?
We shall give to truth a grander birth,
And to steadfast faith a deeper worth,
We shall feed the hungering souls of earth,But whom have we fed today?
We shall reap such joys in the by and by,
But what have we sown today?
We shall build us mansions in the sky,
But what have we built today?
`Tis sweet in the idle dreams to bask;
But here and now, do we our task?
Yet, this is the thing our souls must ask,
What have we done today?
-Nixon Waterman
My friend Andy (AndyEllwood.com) has made a point to me on several occasions now that Generation Y doesn't actually do anything when they see injustice, they don't take action when they see a need for change, they just blog about it, or put up a YouTube video. We communicate for communication's sake, hoping that somehow our words or our YouTube clips will change the world. Kipling warned against this, saying in his poem IF "If you can dream and not make dreams your master, if you can think and not make thoughts your aim." Yet this is what we do on a daily basis. We feel that because we have used the power of the pen, or at least the keyboard, we have effected some sort of change and nothing beyond the words is really necessary. This post is almost a performative contradiction, I know. It means that in order to not be a hypocrite I have to actually *do* something this week beyond merely blog.
I have heard some of my friends say that our generation needs a voice. The problem is not that we don't have voices; nay, the problem is that we have a cacophony of voices. Generation Y needs a purpose, a unified cause, not the multitude of causes celebre that seem to populate blogs and Facebook groups. The Generation Y people I know who are involved in politics are a bunch of sycophants and "yes men" who want nothing more than the taste of power. If you don't believe me, walk into any random campaign office and look for the people between the ages of 18 and 30. You'll be disgusted.
I am not writing this as if I have the solution. I really don't know what it is, but we as a generation need to be thinking about it and figuring things out. I'm not sure the country can survive many more Baby Boomer-controlled Congresses or White Houses. But it isn't just with respect to politics that I am writing this post. I think it applies to many facets of society. We need leaders to rise up from GenX&Y in business, the Church, and education as well, and we seem to be devoid of such leaders. The reason is that leadership comes at a price. Most people aren't willing to pay it. The few who are rarely do so for the right reasons, and so they don't make good leaders.
We don't have a lot of time. We need to start a dialog. Join the dialog. Comment on this blog. Write your own thoughts somewhere: your myspace blog, a facebook note. Start thinking. Start talking. And let's all start doing, so we have an affirmative answer to the question "What have we done today?"
But what have we done today?
We shall give out gold in a princely sum,
But what did we give today?
We shall lift the heart and dry the tear,
We shall plant a hope in the place of fear,
We shall speak the words of love and cheer,
But what did we speak today?
We shall be so kind in the after while,
But what have we done today?
We shall bring to each lonely life a smile,
But what have we brought today?
We shall give to truth a grander birth,
And to steadfast faith a deeper worth,
We shall feed the hungering souls of earth,But whom have we fed today?
We shall reap such joys in the by and by,
But what have we sown today?
We shall build us mansions in the sky,
But what have we built today?
`Tis sweet in the idle dreams to bask;
But here and now, do we our task?
Yet, this is the thing our souls must ask,
What have we done today?
-Nixon Waterman
My friend Andy (AndyEllwood.com) has made a point to me on several occasions now that Generation Y doesn't actually do anything when they see injustice, they don't take action when they see a need for change, they just blog about it, or put up a YouTube video. We communicate for communication's sake, hoping that somehow our words or our YouTube clips will change the world. Kipling warned against this, saying in his poem IF "If you can dream and not make dreams your master, if you can think and not make thoughts your aim." Yet this is what we do on a daily basis. We feel that because we have used the power of the pen, or at least the keyboard, we have effected some sort of change and nothing beyond the words is really necessary. This post is almost a performative contradiction, I know. It means that in order to not be a hypocrite I have to actually *do* something this week beyond merely blog.
I have heard some of my friends say that our generation needs a voice. The problem is not that we don't have voices; nay, the problem is that we have a cacophony of voices. Generation Y needs a purpose, a unified cause, not the multitude of causes celebre that seem to populate blogs and Facebook groups. The Generation Y people I know who are involved in politics are a bunch of sycophants and "yes men" who want nothing more than the taste of power. If you don't believe me, walk into any random campaign office and look for the people between the ages of 18 and 30. You'll be disgusted.
I am not writing this as if I have the solution. I really don't know what it is, but we as a generation need to be thinking about it and figuring things out. I'm not sure the country can survive many more Baby Boomer-controlled Congresses or White Houses. But it isn't just with respect to politics that I am writing this post. I think it applies to many facets of society. We need leaders to rise up from GenX&Y in business, the Church, and education as well, and we seem to be devoid of such leaders. The reason is that leadership comes at a price. Most people aren't willing to pay it. The few who are rarely do so for the right reasons, and so they don't make good leaders.
We don't have a lot of time. We need to start a dialog. Join the dialog. Comment on this blog. Write your own thoughts somewhere: your myspace blog, a facebook note. Start thinking. Start talking. And let's all start doing, so we have an affirmative answer to the question "What have we done today?"
The Radical Message of Christ, The Mediocre Message of Christianity
"The Christian faith has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult, and left untried." -G.K. Chesterton
Unfortunately, the Church's failure to live the radical, and mostly untried message of Christ has led to an emptying out of the pews, a lukewarmness for those who remain, and emptiness in a broken society desperately in need of forgiveness, acceptance, and love.
The Western world has drawn the line in the sand with itself, and its options are both unpalatable: Secularism or Fundamentalism. There is no long-term sustainability in either of these options, because they are fully and utterly devoid of meaning, and are the bastardization of Reason and Faith, respectively. Secularism requires an explanation of everything, where Fundamentalism requires an explanation of nothing. In the midst of this, the mainline Christian Church in the West is twiddling its thumbs, and wishing (not even praying) that things were different.
"Perception is reality" is a basic truth of human interaction, and in the age of the Internet, "Perception is based on your website" is a new basic truth. I make this remark only slightly in jest, but if I were some wandering agnostic in my neighborhood of Uptown Dallas (and believe me, the neighborhood is full of wandering agnostics), and I decided that my life were a bit too empty and devoid of meaning, and I thought that perhaps God/Church could fill that void, the first thing I would do is get on the Internet and start googling around to find a place to go. To have a broader appeal, I picked out several churches from the area here as well as some famous churches elsewhere in the country, to see the kinds of hope and meaning churches are offering these days:
From the main website of Saddleback Church, pastored by the famous Rick Warren:
"Over 50 million Americans have discovered the meaning and purpose of their lives through “40 Days of Purpose” - a six session discussion group program based on Dr. Rick Warren’s international bestseller, The Purpose Driven Life.
Beginning the week of October 21/22, more than 4,000 discussion groups will meet weekly throughout Southern California in neighborhoods and workplaces to watch the acclaimed video series on the purpose of your life, and discuss what it means for you. There is no cost to participate.
With its life-changing message, The Purpose Driven Life is “the bestselling hardback in American history, and the bestselling book in the world for 2 years.” (Publisher’s Weekly) It is the most translated book on earth, after the Bible. You’ll get a free copy when you attend a discussion group."
From the main website of Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano, Texas:
Do You Know Christ?
Have you had the experience of knowing Christ in a personal way? Find out how »
Considering Prestonwood?
Get a glimpse of what to expect when you visit and the many opportunities available for your family. Read on »
Bible Fellowship
Develop meaningful friendships and study biblical principles in a small group setting. More info »
Ministry Opportunities
Participate in the various ministries and find out how you can serve. More details »
Reaching Others
Share the love of Christ with others in the community and worldwide. Get involved today »
Beyond All Limits
Take part in this incredible journey as we boldly move forward to proclaim Christ to our neighbors and to the nations. Learn more »
Now, I continued my search, but unfortunately, I could not find any other church websites that had much text, so I'll paste the links to others so you can see for yourself (it is difficult to paste flash into a blog, so Joel Olsteen's church website was completely out of the question, though you might be interested in signing up for his "Inspiration in Your Inbox"):
http://www.lakewood.cc (The Largest Church in the country, pastored by Joel Olsteen)
http://www.willowcreek.org/ (Willow Creek Community Church near Chicago)
http://www.fbcbentonville.org (The Southern Baptist Church I grew up in, in Bentonville, Arkansas)
Now, let's go back to my wandering agnostic...what is he to think when he sees these websites? Well, most of the wandering agnostics in Uptown Dallas are professionals with at least a bachelor's degree; they generally make between $75,000 and $150,000 per year, are single (or live with their girlfriends), drive a BMW 3 Series, drink a few beers Saturday night, and wish they had more time for the gym. All of these even neglects the reality that these Uptown Agnostics grew up in a post-modern society with all of the trappings of skepticism, and simply cannot be bothered with any hocus-pocus nonsense. That being said, "Be a Better You" is not exactly going to strike his fancy.
I have spent the last 2 years of my life working in high technology, and in some of my normal reading, I happened upon an IBM study that concluded that for a person to adopt a new technology, the user must perceive that the new technology be at least 9 times better than the one it is replacing. I tend to think the same holds true of life philosophies and lifestyles. For most of the Church's 2,000 year history, it had a silver bullet to address this problem: Hell. In a very Machiavellian, "ends justify means" sort of way, the Church believed it was doing a lot of good by scaring people into the pews with the threat of Hell. Bertrand Russell describes it this way: "The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists. That is why they invented Hell."
However, in the age of skepticism, disbelief, and agnosticism, people are hardly even convinced enough of God's existence, much less of Hell's. Consequently, "be saved or go to hell" is no longer a credible threat in American society, and it seems that for the first time in 2,000 years, the Church is going to have to work at actually preaching (and more importantly: LIVING) the Good News of the New Testament if it doesn't want to be rendered moot, and shoved onto the shelves of obscurity by the post-modern mind.
No, the moralism worshiped by the Fundamentalists simply does not have broad appeal, particularly in cities, among the college-educated, and the affluent. Yet people invariably still want to believe in something, and even in Christianity, as 80% of the U.S. population reports themselves to be Christian. Talk to any member of the clergy, though, and they will almost laugh at those statistics, because Church attendance and religious identification are two different matters. In a 2006 Gallup poll, asking Americans what institutions they trust, only 28% responded that they trust the Church or Organized Religion "a Great Deal," with an additional 24% saying they trusted it "Somewhat." When half of the population (150 Million people) do not have any trust in an institution, I would call that a crisis for the institution.
The problem is that the Fundamentalist Church isn't 9 times better than regular American life; it's hardly even 2 times better. Church life essentially consists of this: Do everything you normally would do except the 2 or 3 things we tell you not to do. This of course varies from Church to Church, but it usually is some combination of alcohol, drugs, various forms of sex, and maybe lying (only maybe). In return, you don't have to go to hell. That's more or less the trade-off. People who don't believe in hell are not exactly motivated by this...
So what is the response of the mainline denominations? I'm not really sure. I'm not sure they even know. It is generally a bunch of liberal, feel-good nonsense. (This isn't to bash liberalism or feeling good, to be sure, but I'm merely saying this doesn't qualify as the radical message of Christ either). Episcopals, Presbyterians, and Methodists do a little more charity work, the host soup kitchens and give some stuff to the poor, and they make themselves feel better. It's not a lot different than the Fundamentalists in function, only in form. The nice thing about the mainliners is that they are a lot less judgmental and a lot more pleasant to be around.
Jesus's message, on the other hand, was radical, difficult, and life-changing. The Gospels describe Chesterton's understanding of Christianity of being "difficult and left untried." Jesus said that "small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." This isn't the "eternal life in heaven" conceived of by the Fundamentalists, but the "Life and Life more abundantly" Christ promised he was bringing to earth.
In The People of the Lie, M. Scott Peck defines evil as "that force, residing either inside or outside of human beings, that seeks to kill life or liveliness. And goodness is its opposite. Goodness is that which promotes life and liveliness." Leading up to this definition, he argues the following:
Given this conception and background, I would argue that Christ stands at the apex of Life-givingness, and Satan (whether Satan is a being or a metaphor is irrelevant for the purpose of this statement) at its abyss.
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, Blessed are those who mourn, Blessed are the meek, Blessed are those who are hungry, Blessed are the merciful, Blessed are the pure in heart, Blessed are the peacemakers, Blessed are those who are persecuted."
These are not easy sayings. But the promises of reward are overwhelming "Theirs is the kingdom of heaven, They will be comforted, They will inherit the earth, They will be filled, They will be shown mercy, They will see God, They will be called Sons of God, Theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven."
The Kingdom of Heaven is not above us, it is within us. Francis Thompson asked rhetorically, in one of his poems "Does the fish soar to find the ocean, the eagle plunge to find the air?" We too, goaded by the Church, look for Christ's promised rewards out around us, beyond us, above us, rather than within us. When Christ says "And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life," I do not believe he is talking about "going to heaven," nor of receiving material blessings here on earth, but rather something far more radical and transformative than that, eternal life, or to borrow from Peck's terminology, eternal liveliness.
After the Resurrection, Peter was speaking to Jesus, and Jesus asked him, three times, "Peter do you love me?" Peter's response was unequivocal, "Yes, Lord, of course I love you." To which Christ commanded, three times "Then feed my sheep." Not preach to my sheep, not teach my sheep, not keep my sheep in line, but feed them. Two thousand years later, the Church should take up Jesus's call.
The Church must accept the radical message of the Gospel and begin living it. The Church must become a foil for contemporary culture, not merely a critic of it. Only then can the Church pull itself out of irrelevance, and rescue itself from imminent obscurity.
Unfortunately, the Church's failure to live the radical, and mostly untried message of Christ has led to an emptying out of the pews, a lukewarmness for those who remain, and emptiness in a broken society desperately in need of forgiveness, acceptance, and love.
The Western world has drawn the line in the sand with itself, and its options are both unpalatable: Secularism or Fundamentalism. There is no long-term sustainability in either of these options, because they are fully and utterly devoid of meaning, and are the bastardization of Reason and Faith, respectively. Secularism requires an explanation of everything, where Fundamentalism requires an explanation of nothing. In the midst of this, the mainline Christian Church in the West is twiddling its thumbs, and wishing (not even praying) that things were different.
"Perception is reality" is a basic truth of human interaction, and in the age of the Internet, "Perception is based on your website" is a new basic truth. I make this remark only slightly in jest, but if I were some wandering agnostic in my neighborhood of Uptown Dallas (and believe me, the neighborhood is full of wandering agnostics), and I decided that my life were a bit too empty and devoid of meaning, and I thought that perhaps God/Church could fill that void, the first thing I would do is get on the Internet and start googling around to find a place to go. To have a broader appeal, I picked out several churches from the area here as well as some famous churches elsewhere in the country, to see the kinds of hope and meaning churches are offering these days:
From the main website of Saddleback Church, pastored by the famous Rick Warren:
"Over 50 million Americans have discovered the meaning and purpose of their lives through “40 Days of Purpose” - a six session discussion group program based on Dr. Rick Warren’s international bestseller, The Purpose Driven Life.
Beginning the week of October 21/22, more than 4,000 discussion groups will meet weekly throughout Southern California in neighborhoods and workplaces to watch the acclaimed video series on the purpose of your life, and discuss what it means for you. There is no cost to participate.
With its life-changing message, The Purpose Driven Life is “the bestselling hardback in American history, and the bestselling book in the world for 2 years.” (Publisher’s Weekly) It is the most translated book on earth, after the Bible. You’ll get a free copy when you attend a discussion group."
From the main website of Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano, Texas:
Do You Know Christ?
Have you had the experience of knowing Christ in a personal way? Find out how »
Considering Prestonwood?
Get a glimpse of what to expect when you visit and the many opportunities available for your family. Read on »
Bible Fellowship
Develop meaningful friendships and study biblical principles in a small group setting. More info »
Ministry Opportunities
Participate in the various ministries and find out how you can serve. More details »
Reaching Others
Share the love of Christ with others in the community and worldwide. Get involved today »
Beyond All Limits
Take part in this incredible journey as we boldly move forward to proclaim Christ to our neighbors and to the nations. Learn more »
Now, I continued my search, but unfortunately, I could not find any other church websites that had much text, so I'll paste the links to others so you can see for yourself (it is difficult to paste flash into a blog, so Joel Olsteen's church website was completely out of the question, though you might be interested in signing up for his "Inspiration in Your Inbox"):
http://www.lakewood.cc (The Largest Church in the country, pastored by Joel Olsteen)
http://www.willowcreek.org/ (Willow Creek Community Church near Chicago)
http://www.fbcbentonville.org (The Southern Baptist Church I grew up in, in Bentonville, Arkansas)
Now, let's go back to my wandering agnostic...what is he to think when he sees these websites? Well, most of the wandering agnostics in Uptown Dallas are professionals with at least a bachelor's degree; they generally make between $75,000 and $150,000 per year, are single (or live with their girlfriends), drive a BMW 3 Series, drink a few beers Saturday night, and wish they had more time for the gym. All of these even neglects the reality that these Uptown Agnostics grew up in a post-modern society with all of the trappings of skepticism, and simply cannot be bothered with any hocus-pocus nonsense. That being said, "Be a Better You" is not exactly going to strike his fancy.
I have spent the last 2 years of my life working in high technology, and in some of my normal reading, I happened upon an IBM study that concluded that for a person to adopt a new technology, the user must perceive that the new technology be at least 9 times better than the one it is replacing. I tend to think the same holds true of life philosophies and lifestyles. For most of the Church's 2,000 year history, it had a silver bullet to address this problem: Hell. In a very Machiavellian, "ends justify means" sort of way, the Church believed it was doing a lot of good by scaring people into the pews with the threat of Hell. Bertrand Russell describes it this way: "The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists. That is why they invented Hell."
However, in the age of skepticism, disbelief, and agnosticism, people are hardly even convinced enough of God's existence, much less of Hell's. Consequently, "be saved or go to hell" is no longer a credible threat in American society, and it seems that for the first time in 2,000 years, the Church is going to have to work at actually preaching (and more importantly: LIVING) the Good News of the New Testament if it doesn't want to be rendered moot, and shoved onto the shelves of obscurity by the post-modern mind.
No, the moralism worshiped by the Fundamentalists simply does not have broad appeal, particularly in cities, among the college-educated, and the affluent. Yet people invariably still want to believe in something, and even in Christianity, as 80% of the U.S. population reports themselves to be Christian. Talk to any member of the clergy, though, and they will almost laugh at those statistics, because Church attendance and religious identification are two different matters. In a 2006 Gallup poll, asking Americans what institutions they trust, only 28% responded that they trust the Church or Organized Religion "a Great Deal," with an additional 24% saying they trusted it "Somewhat." When half of the population (150 Million people) do not have any trust in an institution, I would call that a crisis for the institution.
The problem is that the Fundamentalist Church isn't 9 times better than regular American life; it's hardly even 2 times better. Church life essentially consists of this: Do everything you normally would do except the 2 or 3 things we tell you not to do. This of course varies from Church to Church, but it usually is some combination of alcohol, drugs, various forms of sex, and maybe lying (only maybe). In return, you don't have to go to hell. That's more or less the trade-off. People who don't believe in hell are not exactly motivated by this...
So what is the response of the mainline denominations? I'm not really sure. I'm not sure they even know. It is generally a bunch of liberal, feel-good nonsense. (This isn't to bash liberalism or feeling good, to be sure, but I'm merely saying this doesn't qualify as the radical message of Christ either). Episcopals, Presbyterians, and Methodists do a little more charity work, the host soup kitchens and give some stuff to the poor, and they make themselves feel better. It's not a lot different than the Fundamentalists in function, only in form. The nice thing about the mainliners is that they are a lot less judgmental and a lot more pleasant to be around.
Jesus's message, on the other hand, was radical, difficult, and life-changing. The Gospels describe Chesterton's understanding of Christianity of being "difficult and left untried." Jesus said that "small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." This isn't the "eternal life in heaven" conceived of by the Fundamentalists, but the "Life and Life more abundantly" Christ promised he was bringing to earth.
In The People of the Lie, M. Scott Peck defines evil as "that force, residing either inside or outside of human beings, that seeks to kill life or liveliness. And goodness is its opposite. Goodness is that which promotes life and liveliness." Leading up to this definition, he argues the following:
To proceed we need at least a working definition. It is a reflection of the enormous mystery of the subject that we do not have a generally accepted definition of evil. Yet in our hearts I think we all have some understanding of its nature...Evil is in opposition to life. It is that which opposes the life force. It has, in short, to do with killing. Specifically, it has to do with murder--namely, unnecessary killing, killing that is not necessary for biological survival. When I say that evil has to do with killing, I do not mean to restrict myself to corporeal murder. Evil is also that which kills spirit. There are various essential attributes of life--particularly human life--such as sentience, mobility, awareness, growth, autonomy, and will. It is possible to kill or attempt to kill one of these attributes without actually destroying the body. Thus we may "break" a horse or even a child without harming a hair on its head. Erich Fromm was acutely sensitive to this fact when he broadened the definition of necrophilia to include the desire of certain people to control others--to make them controllable, to foster their dependency, to discourage their capacity to think for themselves, to diminish their unpredictability and originality, to keep them in line. Distinguishing it from a "biophilic" person, one who appreciates and fosters the variety of life forms and the uniqueness of the individual, he demonstrated a "necrophilic character type," whose aim it is to avoid the inconvenience of life by transforming others into obedient automatons, robbing them of their humanity.
Given this conception and background, I would argue that Christ stands at the apex of Life-givingness, and Satan (whether Satan is a being or a metaphor is irrelevant for the purpose of this statement) at its abyss.
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, Blessed are those who mourn, Blessed are the meek, Blessed are those who are hungry, Blessed are the merciful, Blessed are the pure in heart, Blessed are the peacemakers, Blessed are those who are persecuted."
These are not easy sayings. But the promises of reward are overwhelming "Theirs is the kingdom of heaven, They will be comforted, They will inherit the earth, They will be filled, They will be shown mercy, They will see God, They will be called Sons of God, Theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven."
The Kingdom of Heaven is not above us, it is within us. Francis Thompson asked rhetorically, in one of his poems "Does the fish soar to find the ocean, the eagle plunge to find the air?" We too, goaded by the Church, look for Christ's promised rewards out around us, beyond us, above us, rather than within us. When Christ says "And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life," I do not believe he is talking about "going to heaven," nor of receiving material blessings here on earth, but rather something far more radical and transformative than that, eternal life, or to borrow from Peck's terminology, eternal liveliness.
After the Resurrection, Peter was speaking to Jesus, and Jesus asked him, three times, "Peter do you love me?" Peter's response was unequivocal, "Yes, Lord, of course I love you." To which Christ commanded, three times "Then feed my sheep." Not preach to my sheep, not teach my sheep, not keep my sheep in line, but feed them. Two thousand years later, the Church should take up Jesus's call.
The Church must accept the radical message of the Gospel and begin living it. The Church must become a foil for contemporary culture, not merely a critic of it. Only then can the Church pull itself out of irrelevance, and rescue itself from imminent obscurity.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Disorganized Thoughts on the Crisis in the Anglican Communion
I have been hesitant to write much concerning the present crisis facing the Episcopal Church of the United States and the Worldwide Anglican Communion because it is simply one of those issues for which there are no easy answers. I am a confirmed member of the Episcopal Church and belong to the Church of the Incarnation, a rather large parish in Dallas, Texas. Up until the last few weeks, the crisis in the Communion at-large had not publicly touched the shores of my parish. The Reverend Father Larry Smith, who had been the Rector of Incarnation until his retirement this summer, had done a remarkable job of maintaining unity and calm in the local parish. With his departure, I am in suspended hopes that such unity and spirit of welcome will continue.
It is naive to think, however, that some acrimony will not arise in the coming months. The Most Reverend Archbishop Josiah Fearon of one of the Archdioceses in the Anglican Province of Nigeria recently spent several days in Dallas at Incarnation, speaking, whether directly or indirectly, on the subject of the crisis facing the Anglican Communion. Archbishop Fearon's presence may have irrevocably brought the issue to the fore within our parish, and it is because of this that I have decided to begin publicly thinking about this subject.
I presume that over the next few weeks and months, this subject will occupy a prominent place in the pages of my blog, and it is certainly not a trivial matter. The Anglican Communion is (by many counts) the 2nd largest denomination of Christianity worldwide after Catholicism, and has 77 million adherents globally. Given its size, and the tremendous history of Anglicanism, it would seem that we are moving rapidly backward, not forward, in our present circumstances. As an ecumenist, I believe that the body of Christ should be unified, not fragmented, and although I am under no delusions that it will happen in my lifetime, it is my sincere hope that the Church will eventually be One.
I have had extensive discussions with friends and family about this subject, including one of my closest friends who is undergoing the discernment process for ordination in the Episcopal priesthood. From one such discussion, I came to the conclusion that there are two goals that seem to be at odds with one another, and which are fueling the schism: Truth and Community (which might be used interchangeably with "Communion" or "Unity"). Is the duty of the Church the pursuit of Truth or the pursuit of Communion? This would appear to be the most fundamental presuppositional question that, when answered, defines one's approach to the Anglican crisis.
As I do not think the discussion could proceed intelligibly without them, I will take the following things for granted as simply being accepted: 1) Man lives in some sort of imperfect state [Some might call this "Original Sin"], 2) In a state of imperfection, there exist in our understanding many epistemic gaps, 3) God has given us multiple mechanisms to use to interpret the world in the face of these epistemic gaps (namely: Scripture, Reason, Tradition, and Experience), 4) There exist reasonable disagreements amongst Christians as to conclusions derived from these four pillars of knowledge.
If we accept all four of the foregoing presuppositions, then I would argue that the pursuit of "Truth" as the highest ideal of the Church, inevitably leads to schisms and divisions. When we are preoccupied with who is "right" and who is "wrong," there is no place for Communion and Community. They are incompatible. This does not, however, mean that the pursuit of Truth is incompatible with Community, and in fact, I firmly believe that such a pursuit is best engendered and promoted in the context of healthy Community (in the M. Scott Peck sense).
Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals in the Anglican Communion are pursuing Christian Community, and seeing Christ's church rent asunder is one of the most heartbreaking things I have ever witnessed in my life. I believe that the Love that Christ himself taught can endure the hardship of disagreement. Indeed, St. Paul wrote to the Corinthian church that "Love believes all things, love hopes all things, love endures all things, love never fails." When I survey the crisis in the Anglican Communion, what I see is not a failure of love, but a failure to love, on both side. Perhaps the people for whom this is the least excusable is the Liberals themselves, since their entire position is that we are to love, welcome and accept instead of judge. That means we cannot judge the judgers.
For fear of being considered a fence straddler, I will express that I am in the Liberal camp on this issue. The weight of my own personal experience alone would push me into the progressive side, but I genuinely believe that the Conservative viewpoint, tenuously justified by Scripture, is merely subterfuge for political and cultural biases against gay and lesbian people. This does not mean, however, that I do not want to be in communion with these Conservatives. I believe it is an issue on which there can be reasonable disagreement. Moreover, there should be love and understanding on both sides, and in the interim period if that means progress must be stalled until a new consensus can be reached, then I would favor that over further divisions and degradation in the unity of Christ's Church.
I have heard many on the Conservative side discount "experience" as an important pillar of knowledge, emphasizing Scripture and Tradition most of all. I will end my post today with a story from the Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 11. I will not add my own commentary, but rather want to leave it as food for thought.
=========
The apostles and the brothers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him and said, "You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them."
Peter began and explained everything to them precisely as it had happened: "I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision. I saw something like a large sheet being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to where I was. I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, reptiles, and birds of the air. Then I heard a voice telling me, 'Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.'
"I replied, 'Surely not, Lord! Nothing impure or unclean has ever entered my mouth.'
"The voice spoke from heaven a second time, 'Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.' This happened three times, and then it was all pulled up to heaven again.
"Right then three men who had been sent to me from Caesarea stopped at the house where I was staying. The Spirit told me to have no hesitation about going with them. These six brothers also went with me, and we entered the man's house. He told us how he had seen an angel appear in his house and say, 'Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.'
"As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with[a]water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?"
When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, "So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life."
=========
The Word of the Lord.
Thanks be to God.
It is naive to think, however, that some acrimony will not arise in the coming months. The Most Reverend Archbishop Josiah Fearon of one of the Archdioceses in the Anglican Province of Nigeria recently spent several days in Dallas at Incarnation, speaking, whether directly or indirectly, on the subject of the crisis facing the Anglican Communion. Archbishop Fearon's presence may have irrevocably brought the issue to the fore within our parish, and it is because of this that I have decided to begin publicly thinking about this subject.
I presume that over the next few weeks and months, this subject will occupy a prominent place in the pages of my blog, and it is certainly not a trivial matter. The Anglican Communion is (by many counts) the 2nd largest denomination of Christianity worldwide after Catholicism, and has 77 million adherents globally. Given its size, and the tremendous history of Anglicanism, it would seem that we are moving rapidly backward, not forward, in our present circumstances. As an ecumenist, I believe that the body of Christ should be unified, not fragmented, and although I am under no delusions that it will happen in my lifetime, it is my sincere hope that the Church will eventually be One.
I have had extensive discussions with friends and family about this subject, including one of my closest friends who is undergoing the discernment process for ordination in the Episcopal priesthood. From one such discussion, I came to the conclusion that there are two goals that seem to be at odds with one another, and which are fueling the schism: Truth and Community (which might be used interchangeably with "Communion" or "Unity"). Is the duty of the Church the pursuit of Truth or the pursuit of Communion? This would appear to be the most fundamental presuppositional question that, when answered, defines one's approach to the Anglican crisis.
As I do not think the discussion could proceed intelligibly without them, I will take the following things for granted as simply being accepted: 1) Man lives in some sort of imperfect state [Some might call this "Original Sin"], 2) In a state of imperfection, there exist in our understanding many epistemic gaps, 3) God has given us multiple mechanisms to use to interpret the world in the face of these epistemic gaps (namely: Scripture, Reason, Tradition, and Experience), 4) There exist reasonable disagreements amongst Christians as to conclusions derived from these four pillars of knowledge.
If we accept all four of the foregoing presuppositions, then I would argue that the pursuit of "Truth" as the highest ideal of the Church, inevitably leads to schisms and divisions. When we are preoccupied with who is "right" and who is "wrong," there is no place for Communion and Community. They are incompatible. This does not, however, mean that the pursuit of Truth is incompatible with Community, and in fact, I firmly believe that such a pursuit is best engendered and promoted in the context of healthy Community (in the M. Scott Peck sense).
Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals in the Anglican Communion are pursuing Christian Community, and seeing Christ's church rent asunder is one of the most heartbreaking things I have ever witnessed in my life. I believe that the Love that Christ himself taught can endure the hardship of disagreement. Indeed, St. Paul wrote to the Corinthian church that "Love believes all things, love hopes all things, love endures all things, love never fails." When I survey the crisis in the Anglican Communion, what I see is not a failure of love, but a failure to love, on both side. Perhaps the people for whom this is the least excusable is the Liberals themselves, since their entire position is that we are to love, welcome and accept instead of judge. That means we cannot judge the judgers.
For fear of being considered a fence straddler, I will express that I am in the Liberal camp on this issue. The weight of my own personal experience alone would push me into the progressive side, but I genuinely believe that the Conservative viewpoint, tenuously justified by Scripture, is merely subterfuge for political and cultural biases against gay and lesbian people. This does not mean, however, that I do not want to be in communion with these Conservatives. I believe it is an issue on which there can be reasonable disagreement. Moreover, there should be love and understanding on both sides, and in the interim period if that means progress must be stalled until a new consensus can be reached, then I would favor that over further divisions and degradation in the unity of Christ's Church.
I have heard many on the Conservative side discount "experience" as an important pillar of knowledge, emphasizing Scripture and Tradition most of all. I will end my post today with a story from the Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 11. I will not add my own commentary, but rather want to leave it as food for thought.
=========
The apostles and the brothers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him and said, "You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them."
Peter began and explained everything to them precisely as it had happened: "I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision. I saw something like a large sheet being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to where I was. I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, reptiles, and birds of the air. Then I heard a voice telling me, 'Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.'
"I replied, 'Surely not, Lord! Nothing impure or unclean has ever entered my mouth.'
"The voice spoke from heaven a second time, 'Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.' This happened three times, and then it was all pulled up to heaven again.
"Right then three men who had been sent to me from Caesarea stopped at the house where I was staying. The Spirit told me to have no hesitation about going with them. These six brothers also went with me, and we entered the man's house. He told us how he had seen an angel appear in his house and say, 'Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.'
"As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with[a]water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?"
When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, "So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life."
=========
The Word of the Lord.
Thanks be to God.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Systematizing and Losing Humanity
M. Scott Peck, in his book The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace discusses the stages of community as being 1) Pseudocommunity 2) Chaos 3) Emptiness and 4) Community. The transition from Pseudocommunity to Chaos is inevitable whenever differences begin to arise in the community. He says that one of the common problems that emerges from Chaos is the suggestion from some to fix the community's disagreements by retreating into organization.
"It is true that organizing is a solution to chaos. Indeed, that is the primary reason for organization: to minimize chaos. The trouble is, however, that organization and community are also incompatible. Committees and chairpeople do not a community make. I am not implying that it is impossible...[for] some organization to have a degree of community within itself. I am not an anarchist. But an organization is able to nurture a measure of community within itself only to the extent that it is willing to risk or tolerate a certain lack of structure." The Different Drum, page 93.
Although I believe I must metaphorize Peck's analysis to make it fit into the subject of my thoughts today, I think in a certain sense individual's function in something of their own intrapersonal community. We go along through life, in its various aspects, content pretending that our methods work, in spite of not having given much thought to them, until at some point an event occurs in our lives when we sit up and realize that we have been thrown, usually involuntarily, into a state of chaos. Oftentimes, in response to this chaos, our immediate reaction is to begin creating systems, and blacks and whites. We think that if we implement policies, we can escape from the chaos and prevent the mistakes that took us there.
The problem with this approach (and I know, because I am a fanatic for systems and love to architect complex systems with an almost infinite number of conditional statements to trigger particular reactions, solving for every permutation, iteration, and contingency) is that if these systems involve people, then we have depersonalized, and consequentially, dehumanized everybody involved, including ourselves.
I have recently been particularly proud of myself for deciding to create a rather elaborate and robust system for staving off mistakes I have recently made, and the consequences of which I have recently endured, and almost as soon as the system was implemented, I was forced to come to the stark and horrifying realization that the system had a tremendous flaw: it was dehumanizing. I think at a subconscious level, I had bargained with myself to be satisfied with a distinction between depersonalization and dehumanization, where in fact it was a distinction without a difference. This came crashing down on me today, as I realized that in my effort to thrust myself into one of life's most treacherous endeavors, where one risks most the possibility of experiencing pain, that in an effort to avoid such pain, I had compromised my humanity and the humanity of other people, objectifying them as mere cogs in what I had previously thought was my ingenious and almost fool-proof system. The only fool was myself.
The system I had conjured was an overcorrection for past mistakes. I'm sure others will share similar recollections of early teenage driving lessons: I would be driving along, and get a little too far to the ditch and would jerk the steering wheel to the left, startling everybody riding with me, and most likely the oncoming traffic. Quite frequently the overcorrection is worse than the original error itself. It is not, however, a lesson against correction, merely the exaggerated form of it, and for those of you who know me most intimately, you will know that my penchant, in times of error, is toward overcorrection.
I had to do a gut check today, because I have struggled for so long against the natural inclination of humans to objectify other humans, and I realized I was doing it again. Perhaps worst of all, I was not even doing it out of flippancy or lack of care; rather, I was doing it with a certain sort of subconscious intentionality with the purpose of avoiding pain. Pain avoidance is not the goal or the purpose of life. Nay, I believe it is impossible to truly live without experiencing pain, and it is most certainly impossible to grow. But how unfair was it of me to project my potential pain onto others as actual, present pain, simply to eliminate the risk that I might have to experience it myself?
It just shows that as soon as I think I've made a lot of progress, I realize that I, like everybody else in this world, still have a lot of growing up to do.
"It is true that organizing is a solution to chaos. Indeed, that is the primary reason for organization: to minimize chaos. The trouble is, however, that organization and community are also incompatible. Committees and chairpeople do not a community make. I am not implying that it is impossible...[for] some organization to have a degree of community within itself. I am not an anarchist. But an organization is able to nurture a measure of community within itself only to the extent that it is willing to risk or tolerate a certain lack of structure." The Different Drum, page 93.
Although I believe I must metaphorize Peck's analysis to make it fit into the subject of my thoughts today, I think in a certain sense individual's function in something of their own intrapersonal community. We go along through life, in its various aspects, content pretending that our methods work, in spite of not having given much thought to them, until at some point an event occurs in our lives when we sit up and realize that we have been thrown, usually involuntarily, into a state of chaos. Oftentimes, in response to this chaos, our immediate reaction is to begin creating systems, and blacks and whites. We think that if we implement policies, we can escape from the chaos and prevent the mistakes that took us there.
The problem with this approach (and I know, because I am a fanatic for systems and love to architect complex systems with an almost infinite number of conditional statements to trigger particular reactions, solving for every permutation, iteration, and contingency) is that if these systems involve people, then we have depersonalized, and consequentially, dehumanized everybody involved, including ourselves.
I have recently been particularly proud of myself for deciding to create a rather elaborate and robust system for staving off mistakes I have recently made, and the consequences of which I have recently endured, and almost as soon as the system was implemented, I was forced to come to the stark and horrifying realization that the system had a tremendous flaw: it was dehumanizing. I think at a subconscious level, I had bargained with myself to be satisfied with a distinction between depersonalization and dehumanization, where in fact it was a distinction without a difference. This came crashing down on me today, as I realized that in my effort to thrust myself into one of life's most treacherous endeavors, where one risks most the possibility of experiencing pain, that in an effort to avoid such pain, I had compromised my humanity and the humanity of other people, objectifying them as mere cogs in what I had previously thought was my ingenious and almost fool-proof system. The only fool was myself.
The system I had conjured was an overcorrection for past mistakes. I'm sure others will share similar recollections of early teenage driving lessons: I would be driving along, and get a little too far to the ditch and would jerk the steering wheel to the left, startling everybody riding with me, and most likely the oncoming traffic. Quite frequently the overcorrection is worse than the original error itself. It is not, however, a lesson against correction, merely the exaggerated form of it, and for those of you who know me most intimately, you will know that my penchant, in times of error, is toward overcorrection.
I had to do a gut check today, because I have struggled for so long against the natural inclination of humans to objectify other humans, and I realized I was doing it again. Perhaps worst of all, I was not even doing it out of flippancy or lack of care; rather, I was doing it with a certain sort of subconscious intentionality with the purpose of avoiding pain. Pain avoidance is not the goal or the purpose of life. Nay, I believe it is impossible to truly live without experiencing pain, and it is most certainly impossible to grow. But how unfair was it of me to project my potential pain onto others as actual, present pain, simply to eliminate the risk that I might have to experience it myself?
It just shows that as soon as I think I've made a lot of progress, I realize that I, like everybody else in this world, still have a lot of growing up to do.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
