Them

There is no shortage of rhetoric regarding the division of people. From racial divisions to cultural divisions; from socioeconomic divisions to religious divisions. It seems that humanity has some ingrained nature to construct barriers to determine who is or is not a part of my group.

By what they are not.

Group identity is a funny thing, as a crucial component of any group identity is the ability to determine who is not a part of the group. This apophatic (definition according to what the thing is not) ability is pervasive; everybody knows how to tell which people do not belong in any social setting.

Linguistic markers.

While there are many markers of belonging that are readily identified, the most common of these is language. The words we use and the way we use them determines by and large which group or culture we belong to (or do not belong to, as the case may be).

But there is a larger, more "meta," linguistic marker that transcends cultural barriers.

The use of the word "them." While innocent enough in origin, the word has come to be the biggest impediment to the spread of the gospel and the renewal of the world it brings. As long as there is a "them" then we have an excuse to regard "them" as less than we. As long as we have a mental category of "them" we will never be the people of God we think we are.

The destruction of them.

This is because the gospel of Jesus destroys "them" as a concept. Think of Peter in Acts 10 and the rest of the disciples in Acts 11 (I'm not going to quote it here because I want those of you who are interested to dig out your bible and see what it says for yourself). While they clearly understood an "in" and an "out," the Holy Spirit demanded a different understanding (see Act 11:17 for example).

Christians need to let our concept of "them" be destroyed by the transforming power of the gospel.

Remember that in Christ there is no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free, male plus female, but all are one in Christ. And while you may rightly point out that "in Christ" is a qualifier, and that those who are not "in Christ" are still "them," remember that God's explicitly stated intention is for there to be no "them" (try on Matthew 28 for an obvious example). That is the goal, the telos of God for humanity: "I desire that they should be one just as you and I are one" (John 17:21-22). That is what the gospel brings, and our resistance to such only proves our inability to obey Jesus.

But where sin flourishes, grace abounds.

In this we are the same as the disciples, and so there is hope for us. But the disciples eventually were "transformed by the renewing of (their) minds," and so can we. They key is that there can be no "them," just "we."

The Bible: Literal? Inerrant? Infallible? Authoritative? True?

There are just so many semantic and linguistic nuances flitting about regarding the bible that a person hardly knows what to make of it. For many of us, the designations "inerrant" and "infallible" are academically split hairs that have become the weapons of war for those who find in them ultimate meaning. But we find no such meaning in them.

A quick distinction.

Let's just start out with what these terms actually mean. First, inerrant literally means without error; that every word and punctuation in the bible is without error. The second term, infallible, means that the intentions of the bible are always successful; literally, incapable of being wrong or of failing.

Further messiness.

However, when we get to tossing around terms like "error" and "failure" we need more distinction. What is an error? An error according to intention? An error according to standards of inquiry? Whose standards? What about success? Again, according to intention? According to other standards?

It gets worse.

Now, there is a distinction between what the words mean in a lexical sense and how people use them. When someone says "the bible is literally true" they may mean that the bible contains no errors in intention, but mostly what they mean is that everything in the bible happened woodenly and literally as it is recorded. When the Israelites were fighting the Amorites in Joshua 10 and the text says that "the sun stood still int he heaven,"literalists take it to mean that the sun is moving and the earth stood still. Now, we understand scientifically that as far as we are concerned the sun does not move, but that we move in relation to the sun. If the sun stopped moving it would have no impact on us whatsoever. So the passage in Joshua 10 makes no sense from this perspective.

Inerrant/Infallible.

This is where the inerrantist or infalliblist steps in and says, well, that was just a figure of speech. The intention of the text was to say that God made the day last extra long so that Israel could destroy the Amorites (a questionable ethical concession, but one that we will avoid for today). It was not a scientific explanation of how the feat was accomplished, but was rather a subjective account of what happened from their perspective.

Not helpful.

I've thought for many years that these designations were not only unhelpful, but were just plain silly. The bible is not a science text book; the modern concept of history did not exist when the bible was written. The intention of the bible was not to prove itself by the criteria we've constructed for it. Rather it was to bear witness to the movement of God of restoring the whole world to Godself. The renewal of all things. So often we get it into our heads that the bible exists to prove us right. It doesn't. Our being right about the bible makes no difference to the bible. Nor does it to God.

Some questions.

When can we get beyond these unhelpful ways of talking? And what is a better way of talking about the bible? Do we really need to assent to one of these designations to be a follower of Jesus?

Are we too stuck on this bible thing?

Jesus said that the sabbath was made for humans, not humans for the sabbath in Mark 2. I wonder if he would say the same thing about the bible: the bible was made for humans, not humans for the bible. Just a little something to consider.

Tone

Have you ever noticed that you can tell which side of an argument a person favors just from the tone of their voice? They don't even have to take a side for you to know where they stand. You can just tell. Tone is also indicative of religious or philosophical leanings. I can peg a televangelist from a mile away because of the tone of his voice. And I bet you can too.

More than just a sound.

But there are other kinds of tone. For instance, the sorts of words we use to describe a situation or topic can also be a kind of tone. When courtroom drawings were regular occurrences in newspapers, the way the characters in the trial were depicted was a type of tone; sometimes the way the artist drew the defendant would be a determining factor of whether or not they were found guilty.

Tone matters.

The tone we use can have far reaching consequences. If the tone I carry when writing on this blog is too cynical, I stand to lose influence with those who are committed to the topics I address here. If too rigid, those who disagree with me will tune me out.

Appropriate, or fitting-ness, of tone.

Is there ever a time when an abrasive tone is the most effective? I think there is. For instance, when a child is about to run into traffic an urgent and authoritative/controlling tone is needed in both word and action. But what about something a little less obvious? Say doctrinal allegiance? If a certain doctrinal stance is vital to you, are you willing for your tone to exclude those who disagree from your church? Is your own personal righteousness dependent on an unwavering tone?

Consider the effect of your tone before you speak and act.

It is okay and even good to make a stand on things that matter to you. But when your stance is one of exclusion and ostracism you gain nothing. You may even lose those who were entrusted into your care. It is okay to disagree, but the tone of your disagreement matters more than your position, especially if you are trying to lead people in following Jesus. Think about that next time you address one of the more divisive topics in society. 

The Genie is Not Free; He's Dead.

Robin Williams died yesterday of an apparent suicide. By now I'm sure this is not news, and in fact most of you will be tired of reading about it; but please, don't stop reading this now because I have jumped on the bandwagon. I actually have something I wish to say.

The Academy tweeted this after news of Williams' apparent suicide broke:

"Genie, you're free"

I am going to be horrifically cold and abrasive in my next line, so if you wish to maintain a nice illusion of my person you'd better quit reading now (see how contradictory I am?).

Genie, you're not free; you're dead.

Dear Academy: please stop confusing sentimentality with comfort and filling the hearts and heads of those who listen to you with the idea that if you end your life in a fit of depression you will be free!

While comforting in a superficial, shallow way, this sentiment is actually incredibly destructive! The most devastating evils in the history of the world have become so because they were packaged as something nice and safe. But they were not.

By glorifying suicide as a means of escape from the horrors of life we are causing these horrors. It is like filling your baby's bottle with heroin; it tastes good and will make the kid sleep, but then it kills him.

If you are entirely out of hope; if the horrors of life have caught you and you can see no way out, there are people who will help you. If you feel like there is no one to help, email me. I will find you someone who will help you. And please listen to me when I say that ending your life will not let you escape the pain; you will just be dead. There is hope, and there is healing.

The Web of Time and The Permanent Now

I currently contribute a thought or two to a Facebook Discussion Group/Public Forum called "A / THEISM: An ongoing discussion on religion, irreligion & morality". One of the recent discussions centered around the relationship between humanity and the potential of divinity. While I would love to wax poetic about the nuances and finer points of this topic, I would be remiss to do so here, and recommend you visit the forum and read for yourself.

At some point during the discussion, a comment was made regarding the nature of time and the potentiality of God within/beyond/participating in time.

The Emergence of a Question

As I have had opportunity to reflect on this point, I've been struck by the incredibly limited understanding of time that I (and I assume others) operate with. I think of time as a single constant; a line if you will. Most of us have seen (probably in our Western Civ. textbooks) a timeline of history, whereon the noteworthy moments and advances are plotted. This is a helpful device for gaining a sense of one history, but not for understanding the unit of reference commonly called "time."

Let me explain in a little more detail: there are many such histories with their own developments and recessions. While it may not be readily apparent while living in a single history, when our own history intersects or collides with another we are made (sometimes startlingly) aware of the divergences of history.

What if time were also this way? What if there are many times; a web perhaps?

This seems to interact with our notions of cause and effect and our preoccupation with "first causes" or singular results. We want there to be a single, identifiable cause for everything we encounter. This helps make life understandable. But the reality of life is not this way. There are many, many causes, and many, many effects. A single action will likely effect many other actions, and may in turn have been caused by many other such actions.

Time functions in this way also.

Since time is not an actual entity, but rather is an object of understanding; a means of tracking development, movement, etc, it then follows that the future of this point for each of us can be one of many possible paths.  Time therefore is not a single constant, but many intersecting constants that continually interact.

Think of it as the many strands in spider's web.

Each strand represents a given sequence of events that emanate from any certain action or event. This is generally how we experience time; as a constant "now" that is ever changing, becoming the present from many direct or indirect points in history.

This helps us understand how God can be beyond yet within time.

Because time is not a governing force, but rather an attempt to track and understand what is happening, we do not need to construct an explanation of God's relationship to it. Instead, we need to speak about that relationship in terms that work within the paradigm we are using to explain what is happening. So if this is our aim, then we can say that God is the presence of the experiential now, the eternal present. This is not a claim in conflict with science nor classical theism, but is rather a way of explaining how God can be what the bible claims God is. The Permanent Now.

White Privaledge (Privilege)

I think I was in my mid twenty's when I first understood the privilege and standing my gender and skin color afforded me. It was for many reasons that I was unaware of these privileges, primarily that I grew up in a largely homogenous town where being those things didn't really get you anything someone else couldn't get.

I don't really remember what happened that made me realize the luxury I enjoy. I think it was more of a gradual dawning, the way the sun rises over the prairie- a glow, then a glimmer, then a spot, then a sliver growing into the brilliance of the mid-day sun. That's how I think I realized privilege.

I am curious and tempted by that curiosity to explore the depths and layers of that privilege, but that is not the question I want to ask here. The question I want to ask here is this:

I'm white and male. What can I do about it?

Do about it isn't really the right way of saying it. There is nothing I can do, short of major experimental surgery, to change that fact anymore than a person who is not those things can change either. And besides, even if I could change, that would still be an exercise of the privilege I am trying to escape. Rather, I think it's time for white men to own up to the privilege they are afforded and work to a) end that inequity with this generation and b) use that privilege to empower others.

The first thing step is recognizing and destroying entitlement.

Entitlement is such an ugly thing. And what makes it worse is that in order to be entitled you cannot know that you are; no truly entitled person knows they're entitled. Entitlement, as I am using the word, is expecting certain standards of treatment that are at the expense of others. Very few people are willfully and disregarding the well being of another in the pursuit of "their rights." Most do so in ignorance. But let me be clear: most white males think they are entitled to a certain standard of living, comfort, social standing, and respect, and will pursue this "right" to the detriment of all others.

Entitlement almost always thrives in the shadow of ignorance.

You can't fix something you don't know is broken. So let's make a short list of things people think they are entitled to:

-Get What I Want: This is the most obvious form of entitlement, and is probably what your mind jumped to when you read the word in this post. But it may surprise you haw entitled you actually are in this regard. If you don't stop and think about what effect your desire will have on other people-especially those around you, but also in far-off corners of the world-you have entitlement issues.

-Convenience: This one is less obvious than the first, but still more obvious than the next two. Convenience dovetails right into getting what we want at the expense of others, such as cutting someone off in traffic or going to the express lane at the grocery store when you have more items than are allowed in that lane. You do these things because you think, way down deep, that it is your right to get to where you are going or wait the shortest amount of time in line. But these are not your rights. And if you are aware of the fact that your pursuit of this things deprives others of what is their right, you can begin moving away from entitlement and into empowerment.

-Be Heard: Still more difficult to observe-yet more powerful in its scope- is the notion that I have a right to be heard at the expense of others. This generally is most observable in legal proceedings. Entitled people tend to speak more forcefully-and subsequently get the benefit of many decisions-than people who feel they are not entitled to their own voice. This also shows up in emotionally abusive religious experiences; the entitled person, usually the abuser, by his/her actions and words deprives the abused of their ability to speak and receive the benefit of arbitration from an outside source. If think your voice is the only one that needs to be heard, you are entitled.

-Best Bang for Buck: This is tricky because entitlement here is intertwined with cultural values of frugality and stewardship. It makes good, practical sense to purchase goods that give you the best ROI, or Return On Investment. But when we pursue this goal without restraint we actually begin depriving others of their needs. Your $3 T-shirt from H&M cost more than that to make. Someone along the line between the cotton field and the sales floor is taking the loss. And I guarantee you it is not the CEO.

So back to my original question, what to do with my privilege, I propose a recognition of that privilege and a commitment to use it to empower others. It is kinda like the concept of replacing yourself in a work environment; you empower others to do what you do so that the company can be more effective and healthy. And while the analogy only goes so far, it is the same idea with regard to society: give your privilege away so that the society can be more effective and healthy. This takes many forms, but here are three simple takeaways:

1-Advocate for those who are not of the privileged few. Fight for the rights of women and "racial" minorities. If you arrive at a supermarket cashier at the same time as someone else let them go first. If you know that a law is written in such a way that it discriminates, tell your representative to fight to fix it.
2-Recognize and eliminate the areas of Entitlement in your life. Take an honest look at how you behave in relation to your desires and values. Do you pursue them without consideration of the cost to others? If so, you need to change.
3-Be generous. Recognize the difference between your needs and your wants and use the time/money/brainpower you might have spent pursuing your own desires and spend it on someone else. Especially someone who needs it. Buy one t-shirt that will pay the people who made it instead of five that don't. This is a privileged thing to do, but it is not oriented towards sustaining privilege at the expense of others.