“Self” is a prism of directionless ambiguity, yet it drives us.
We view the world through it, yet fail to understand how that same world shapes it.
“Self” is developed by the same personal and societal forces it is called to interpret.
We cannot perceive the world until we perceive our selves.
I think I have the most beautiful daughter in the world. Just check out this picture from Halloween:
Every chance I get, I tell her she is beautiful. Beth and I constantly ask ourselves, “Honestly, could she get any cuter?” I feel like we were playing Russian Roulette with my looks being in the gene pool, and luckily she turned out pretty good looking (if in 10 years she has a uni-brow and a beard, you know who to blame).
But I will be honest with you, sometimes I worry about her being so beautiful. Will she grow up and be vain? Will she have difficulty understanding inner beauty because she always possessed outer beauty? If (when) her outer beauty fades, will she allow it to bother her?
I ask these questions but at the end of the day I don’t really worry about them. That’s because Mikayla has an amazing personality for a baby. She is content and inquisitive. She would rather smile than cry. She enjoys company and can play alone.
In fact, instead of worrying about her, I have found she has many things she can teach me.
_titles.jpg "Title Screen")
Title Screen from "The Trap"
Go ahead… carve out 3 hours from your day. You are going to want to watch this. The following is a three part documentary produced by Adam Curtis and originally aired on the BBC. It follows the philosophical underpinnings that have guided the way we understand the world for the past century and how that has affected everything from foreign policy to personal health to our notion of productivity. The whole series hinges on how we understand the concepts of freedom and liberty. This is quite timely given the political climate of the day and the obvious disconnect between various wings of society. I have embedded a YouTube playlist for each episode so you can watch it through. I have also included notes on each episode… but trust me, you want to watch the whole thing.
Episode 1 – Fuck You Buddy
I am sorry if the title offends you (if it makes things better… I was introduced to this documentary through a seminary class that required we watch it). The title comes from an experiment developed by John Nash (the lead character in A Beautiful Mind) which supposed that the world operated best when people were selfish. This segment details how game theory and other mathematical formulas convinced the world that the best way to view humanity was through a lens of suspicion where all people were obviously in it for themselves and every decision was motivated by self-interest and preservation. This was the dominate mindset in the Cold War Era. When we approach the whole world through a lens of distrust, it is amazing (and unfortunate) how we view society.
Episode 2 – The Lonely Robot
In this episode Curtis continues to explore our desire for society and people to be predictable. Perhaps it is a desire to understand, or perhaps it is a desire to control. He looks at the development of the mental health field and our own understanding of what it means to be “normal.” From here he explores the consequences of a world where everyone strives for an ideal that is, at best, arbitrary. Curtis follows how this emphasis on standards spiraled out of control in a vain attempt to maximize productivity in all sectors… even if the measurements were pure conjecture. These ideas (however flawed) were monumental in ushering in a new understanding of the free market.
Episode 3 – We will Force you to be Free
After exploring the way we view ourselves and human nature, Curtis begins in earnest to explore our ideas of freedom. Specifically he examines the concepts of Negative Liberty and Positive Liberty as made popular by Isaiah Berlin. Negative Liberty is a freedom from coercion while Positive Liberty is the freedom to achieve one’s true potential. The prior has been deemed the “safest” because the later has historically required force and oppression to bring about. However, following the path of negative liberty to its logical conclusions, as governments have done in the West for the past 50 years, results in a society without meaning populated only by selfish automatons. The answer then must be a peaceful pursuance of Positive Liberty.
Adam Curtis has always been known for producing provocative documentaries. I am sure he overstates some items in this program and under reports others. However, this program forces the viewer to examine the way in which they view the world and requires them to acknowledge how their understanding of society affects their interactions with it.
I am a discontent person. Just ask my wife or co-workers.
Its not that I walk around all day and mope about how life sucks and I got the short end of the stick; far from it. I feel incredibly lucky. I have a great family, a wonderful life and the freedom to do the things I enjoy.
For me, discontentment is not about what we have or our personal lives, but rather it is about the way things could be. I become discontent when I believe there is a better way. I am the kind of guy who can spend an hour trying to figure out the best way to do a 15 minute task. [Side Story: When I kid I was responsible for bringing up the firewood to the house. I tried every conceivable way to make the process easier but usually ended up carrying it up by hand. After a year or two I finally realized the shortest way was not the best way and was able to perfect “The Wheel Barrel Technique” and thus finally suceeded at finding “The Better Way.”]
I tend to look at the world in the same way. Sure there is a lot of good going on — especially in this country, but I refuse to be content because I know things can be better. I am convinced this is because of my understanding of the Christian Narrative. The story of God’s interaction with Creation and Humanity is not about a magic wand where all things are set right (I would even argue the cross is not the final solution). Instead, it a constantly evolving story of redemption where each generation is called to take the torch and continue to partner with YHWH in making the world a better place. The message of Creator-God is constant: I will bless my people so that they can be a blessing to ALL THE NATIONS.
Yes I am discontent. But, that is because I refuse to be content in a world where there is still genocide and human trafficking and corporate exploitation and racism and rape as a weapon of war and….
It would easy to curl up into a ball and enjoy my happy life. To be thankful that my family has healthcare and a warm home. To use my disposable income for personal pleasures and to ignore the plight of so many who do with so little. But I can’t. I can’t because I don’t believe we have yet arrived. I don’t believe where we are as a community, country, society, world is good enough. I am discontent because I believe there is a better way. I believe we have a long way to go and I want to be a part of getting there.
Below I have included a video (I am pretty sure you are going to have to go to youtube to watch it) and the lyrics from one of my favorite songs: Better Way by Ben Harper. He has one stanza that I often repeat to myself whenever I find myself moving from a healthy discontentment into cynicism: What good is a man who won’t take a stand // What good is a cynic with no better plan.
In looking to live out “a better way” I am constantly aware that it is not enough to simply be discontent with the way things are, but we must be active in bringing it about. It is like Gandhi said: “You must be the change you wish to see.”
Better Way – Ben Harper
I’m a living sunset
Lightning in my bones
Push me to the edge
But my will is stone
Fools will be fools
And wise will be wise
But i will look this world
Straight in the eyes
What good is a man
Who won’t take a stand
What good is a cynic
With no better plan
Reality is sharp
It cuts at me like a knife
Everyone i know
Is in the fight of their life
Take your face out of your hands
And clear your eyes
You have a right to your dreams
And don’t be denied
I believe in a better way
Family at Jackson's Orchard
I was talking with someone the other day about my ability to work at Kaleidoscope without compensation. She was very confused… how could Beth and I support ourselves if I was only working minimal hours a week at a low rate and us practically living on a teacher’s salary. It was easy I told her… we live simply. We drive old cars, don’t buy new clothes, have a modest house and save our money. Unfortunately these simple exercises are entirely foreign to too many people.
In the last year our take home income has decreased by over 30% and we have a new member in the family. At the same time, our savings have gone up and “happiness” has significantly increased. In the last year, my primary job has gone from full time to part time to very part time to no time. Instead of stressing about money, we have actually been able to give more and save more. In fact, since Mikayla has been born, our monthly expenses have continued to drop.
What accounts for this? Have we fired our butler? Have we sold off hidden assets? Have we joined a commune?
Not at all… we have just continued to re-evaluate our priorities and moved towards a simplified life. Time with family is more important than extravagant vacations. Food from the garden is better than eating out. New clothes are not needed when you aren’t trying to impress people who do not even care about you in the first place.
Sure we don’t drive the nicest cars (when they run), and Lord knows we don’t have the slickest attire. We aren’t on everyone’s “Who’s Who” list and we don’t get to experience the newest greatest things, BUT…
We are as happy as we have ever been, we stress less, and the time we spend with family and friends outweighs any possession or experience one could buy. I regularly wake up excited about what the day holds and not worried about what I have to get done. Those things are priceless.
There is no way I could go back to the rat-race of life. In only people knew the peace and happiness that comes from a path of downward mobility…. There is a reason that Jesus told his followers to sell all they have to give to poor. It is not so that the poor can be liberated, but so that the wealthy can.
In the past few months I have had several excellent conversations about the origin and inventory of human rights. It seems most people agree with the idea that people are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” yet when it comes to specifics there is much disagreement. For instance… does “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” refer to freedom or opportunity (put another way, are these things something all people should have, or have the option of having — the difference is substantial).
This discussion began when I compared universal education with universal health care and asked if both should be considered human rights. My friend Aaron pushed back saying that rights exist individually apart from anyone granting them to you. (Therefore if the government is the purveyor of universal health care, it cannot exist beyond them and thus cannot be a right). Desmond Tutu takes a different approach by saying human rights exist because we are created in the image of God. Without too many specifics, he argues this means we should extend respect and care to all people.
As nice as it is to say that rights are inherent and/or God-given, it seems the facts of history do not support this. Most would agree the freedom (from slavery) is a God-given right. However, in the hundreds of years across which the Bible was written, this “right” was never extended or even articulated. Heck, even our constitution, which is still a relatively recent document, did not consider this to be a right.
At the end of the day, societies are the ones who give rights, and this usually comes in the form of the government. Put another way, rights can not be rights until they are extended by the authority of a group of people (government). Freedom of speech, which is actually a relatively old idea, was first extended under Greek empire. Before the powers that be articulated and defended that right, it did not exist. Likewise, freedom from ownership was not a right to be extended until governments listened to the Abolitionists and began protecting people from slavery.
Rights may in fact come from God, but at the end of the day, it is up to governments (or other authoritative communities) to identify and codify these rights. One thing is clear… Rights are not static, but are evolving. In the last 250 years, Americans have come to generally agree on a slew of individual rights: right to bear arms, right to vote, right to practice religion, right to private property, right to a fair trial, etc. While people may consider these to be God-given, they are all actually given by our constitution.
It is my belief that we as a society are moving towards a more civilized existence. I am glad our constitution protects so many rights and I am also glad our nation has risen up to extend more rights (like voting and abolishing slavery). I believe we have reached the point where we understand what things should not be done to people and are starting to understand what things should. It is my guess that in 100 years, everyone will consider education, healthcare, clean drinking water, adequate food and shelter to be basic human rights that should be extended to all. We should not fear the government extending these rights anymore than we should have feared the government banning slavery. Change happens, and when it comes to governments extending rights, history has consistently shown this to be a good thing.
One of the hallmarks of evangelical theology is the concept of penal substitution. Basically this is a form of substitutionary atonement theory which states Jesus died on the cross in place of sinners in order to satisfy the penalty of their sin. In other words, the death of Christ is substituted for the punishment sinners should receive (which is generally understood to be “death” and separation from God.) Christ takes our punishment so we can be forgiven. When you hear a pastor say “Christ died for my/your sins” what you are hearing is an articulation of substitutionary atonement.
Crucifixion, D. Velázque, 17th c.
This idea of atonement has origins going back to the early church fathers, but its formal outline is generally attributed to the 11th century monk Anselm of Canterbury who preferred to talk of “satisfaction” rather than of “substitution” (Christ’s death was a satisfactory sacrifice for our sins rather than a substitution for the penalties of our sins). It was further developed and brought to wide spread acceptance by John Calvin and the reformers. It should be noted that while penal substitution is certainly favored by evangelical (especially reformed) Christians/churches/theologians, it is not the only theory of atonement. Two of the other major atonement theories are: Moral influence (Christ’s death show perfect obedience and love), and Ransom / Christus Victor (Christ was the ransom for humanity’s debt to Satan.) Other theories often combine / tweak concepts found in these approaches.
Penal substitution is based on a few premises.
It is with this second point that things get tricky. First, we must ask, “who is covered by this.” Those in the reformed camp will say it is only for the elect — that is, those whom God has predestined to be saved. Those in the free will camp will say it available for all, but only effective for those who trust in Jesus. Finally, those in the universalist camp will say all people are covered regardless of status. When we begin to ask who is covered by the sacrificial act of the cross, we begin to get into the fuzzy math of substitutionary atonement theory.
This leads me to a question I have pondered for years and have yet to hear a satisfactory answer:
How can the death of one person be the acceptable substitute for the sins of all humanity?
Let’s walk through the court room imagery upon which this theory is based. So I die and stand before my creator. God says to me, “It looks like you have sinned and thus you must be punished.” At that point Jesus comes in and says, “I don’t want him to be punished, since I have lived a sinless life, let me stand in his place.” Jesus is then led to the cross and crucified.
Okay, that works out great, until the next sinner comes before the throne of judgment. Presumably Jesus is allowed to stand in my place because he lived a sin free life and is the only person in the history of the world who does not deserve punishment / judgment for sin. His life for mine – its a fair trade. But now that Jesus’ perfect life has been traded for my life, what is left to be traded (substituted)?
The problems don’t stop there. If we are truly talking about the substitution of a penalty, we must examine the trade closer. In the way this theory is generally taught, we avoid damnation (judgment) because Christ voluntarily died on the cross. But, we must admit this is not a fair trade. Christ experienced physical death that lasted 3 days. Sinners on the other hand would experience eternal damnation (in addition to physical death) if it was not for the work of Christ. Again… this does not seem to be a fair trade.
So at the end of the day, the equation looks like this:
3 Days of physical death by sinless man = eternal damnation for countless people and their lifetimes of sin
I am sorry, but that math just doesn’t work out.
The books are obviously being cooked in some way. I have heard people claim that this equation still works because it was not just a man who died, but it was God himself. That seems logical, but then at the end of the day we still run into problems. How can it be a trade if God in fact did not die and did not experience damnation. The need for judgment still has not been satisfied. And, if we assume that this equation meets God’s standards so God can still be just, we must ask why it had to happen at all. If God can determine what meets the standards of a fair trade, it can be assumed that he could also waive the need for a penalty.
Now lets get back to another question: who is covered by this act? Even if somehow the math works out, and the death of one god-man can cover infinite sinful lives, then why wouldn’t this lead to universal salvation? Why must people individually accept this sacrifice? If it has the power to cover the sins of all, then why would it not be extended to all, especially if we believe God desires none to perish. (There are certainly some people who think that God does in fact desire some to perish, but that is an entirely different conversation into the nature of a loving God.)
The problem is not alleviated if you take Anselm’s view of satisfaction over substitution. It does answer a few more questions because the Old Testament does teach of a sacrafice that covers an entire group of people (i.e. on the Day of Atonement) but at the end of the day you run into the same problems concerning who is covered by this act (along with some new problems: Does God allow for, and indeed propagate, human sacrifice?).
I will be the first to admit, these are not easy questions and I do not profess to have the answers. The things we are dealing with here are of the utmost theological importance. We are talking about the very nature of Christ, his mission, and its effect on our relationship with God. When we talk about atonement, we are talking about how God interacts with and responds to humanity and vice versa. This is no minor matter.
But at the same time, I fear we have all to often assumed the only orthodox understanding of atonement is that of penal substitution without first examining the workings of such a theory. Its not that I reject this approach, its that I don’t understand it. This post is a sincere effort to work through my questions and I invite all my friends who take this approach to help me understand it.
Henry David Thoreau
Henry David Thoreau is a personal hero of mine because he authentically lived his life and was willing to call into question the status quo. His writing span a wide swath of topics from nature to civil disobedience to truth. He is considered a transcendentalist and was significant in influencing people like Ghandi, JFK, MLK, Tolstoy, Hemingway, George Bernard Shaw and Ralph Waldo Emerson. Here are a few of my favorite quotes from Thoreau:
If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.
A man is rich in proportion tothe number of things which he can afford to let alone.
Do not be too moral. You may cheat yourself out of much life. Aim above morality. Be not simply good; be good for something.
Live each season as it passes; breathe the air, drink the drink, taste the fruit, and resign yourself to the influences of each.
I have learned, that if one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is in prison.
Our houses are such unwieldy property that we are often imprisoned rather than housed in them.
As you simplify your life, the laws of the universe will be simpler; solitude will not be solitude, poverty will not be poverty, nor weakness weakness.
Being is the great explainer.
Do not worry if you have built your castles in the air. They are where they should be. Now put the foundations under them.
Faith keeps many doubts in her pay. If I could not doubt, I should not believe.
It is never too late to give up our prejudices.
The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation
Walden Pond
Grandpa and Grandma with their 3 great-grandchildren: Mikayla, Luke and Chase
Today has been an odd day for me. Despite the fact it has been quite mundane, it has been emotionally draining. My grandfather was just moved to hospice and the doctors think we are talking days instead of weeks or months. Grandpa was diagnosed with leukemia 17 years ago and has gone through many other life threatening illnesses, yet has always been a fighter. Even though we have been called up to make our “last visits” several times, this time really seems different. At the same time, my father is in town and has been immensely enjoying his time with Mikayla (he was planning on going to backpacking, but given the recent news has decided to divert to Chicago).
Dad and I had a pretty lazy day today. We cooked some soup for a friend who just had a baby and we watched a few documentaries. We actually spent most of the day just sitting around talking about memories and entertaining the most alert and cheerful 4 month old in the world.
It is this juxtaposition of new life and possible death that has me a bit melancholy and pensive. I am spending time with my dad as he thinks about the possible loss of his. He is spending time being energized by the life of his grand-daughter while I am contemplating the loss of my own grand-father. We talked expectantly about what Mikayla’s life will hold for her as we reflect on the meaning and significance of grandpa’s life. Every song on the radio seems to have the power to call up painful realities, or hopeful possibilities.
I could wax on about the frailty of life and the interconnectedness of all people. I could go into detail about my love for my daughter and my love for my grandfather and how each stage of life refines and expands that love. I could focus on one and ignore the other. But, instead, I am content to reflect on the words of Solomon:
There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven:
a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
a time to scatter stones and a time to gather themm
a time to embrace and a time to refrain,
a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.
~Ecclesiastes 3:1-8
This passage is often used when we are looking for reassurance in a single circumstance: why is there death, why is there pain, why is there sorrow. We want to know that even the worst circumstances have a purpose. For me, that is not the most significant or reassuring truth in this passage. Instead of letting us know that there is room for even the painful things in the grand scheme of life, this passage lets us know that all things happen as part of a larger system that is always on-going. There is always death, but there is also always life. There is always pain, but there is also always hope. There is always sorrow, but there is also always celebration.
For me, today has been the realization of that very truth.
I shopped at Wal-Mart the other day. It is not something I am proud of, nor is it something that happens very frequently, but it happens. After reading Nickel and Dimed by Barbra Ehrenreich and watching the documentary The High Cost of Low Prices I become convinced that the ideals of the Wal-Mart corporation are not the same as my ideals and thus largely quit shopping there. I admit, since my objection with Wal-Mart largely centered around their treatment of low-wage workers and their effect on Mom and Pop type stores, I considered my boycott to be taking the moral high ground.
During my quick visit to “The Superstore” I noticed something: Things here are dirt cheap! Raspberries for $2! A gigantic bag of Doritos for $2.50! That is like 30% cheaper than what I am used to paying.
Realizing this brought my mind back to a blog post by an urban pastor I the utmost respect for: Aaron Mansfield. (If you are looking for a guy who shoots straight, and constantly acts on his love for Jesus and people, then you need to read his blog Apostolic Obsession). After a trip to Estonia, Aaron wrote a post about the luxury of the higher moral road when it comes to shopping (read the whole post here: Thinking About Estonia).
Aaron challenges the “elitist” (my word, not his) view of Wal-mart:
I like Wal-Mart. As I have said before, given my ministry and given my economic situation, a store that focuses on families making 30k or less is very helpful. Much as I might like to buy organic produce at a pachouli co-op, or buy my hemp clothes from a fair-trade boutique, I can’t. Artur asked me why some people from America told him he should not shop at Wal-Mart when he came to America? How to explain it, this luxury of pointless opinions? He only said he could not get clothes that cheap anywhere, and when you don’t have much money… I guess I just reiterate my point: part of the attack on Wal-Mart becomes an attack on the lower classes.
He takes it further by discussing the concepts of buying local and organic. He poignantly asks:
Is eating local really an ethical choice, one that is moral in a universal way? Or is it just another cool thing?
Now, I know (and I am pretty sure Aaron knows) there are very good reasons to eat local and support the local stores over the multi-national corporations: It does not contribute to the widening gap between rich and poor; you know where your food comes from and what goes into it; it decreases the likelihood that oppressive systems were used in producing things; it cuts pollution from production and transportation; the money goes directly to the people who work the hardest; even though Wal-mart and similar stores are cheap, they often cut costs by taking advantage of lower skilled workers .
I don’t shop at Wal-mart (much) because I don’t want to contribute to the system of production it relies on. However, Aaron makes some very good points. Because of places like Wal-mart, people can get more for less. As such, we should never critisize people who shop there by choice, necessity or ignorance. At the same time, we must realize that the same system that provides these low costs often contributes to the problem. Large corporations epitomize the growing divide between rich and poor as executives sin in far off plush offices make mbillions (4 of the 15 richest people in the world have amassed their wealth through Wal-mart with a total net worth of 70+ Billion dollars) while an army of minimum wage workers (who are often uninsured) keep the machine running. When you work 40 hours a week for minimum wage, you have to shop at places like Wal-mart.
I don’t think there is a “right” answer here, but it is obvious our discussion must account for the individuals on both side of the equation. We must understand individual situations as well as the larger system. Personally I am thrilled when people are willing to asks about the ethics of their individual decisions rather than just sticking their head in the sand and living without thinking.