Monthy Archive: January 2006
« December 2005 | Main | February 2006 »

If you read this blog, PLEASE sign in to my guest book on frappr. No personally identifying information is needed, so this is risk-free. Just provide a name (even a nickname), your zip code, and any statement you want to make ("hi" is sufficient).

If you want to know more about me, click here.

January 01, 2006

Faith : Opinions vs. Attitudes

The classic board game Othello was marketed with the tagline "A minute to learn, a lifetime to master." I believe something similar can be said of Christianity.

Christianity was never meant to be hard to understand. God wanted people of all backgrounds and skills to be able to understand the message and experience the good news. It is people who have tended to make it difficult, creating complex theologies and doctrinal structures that require years of study to understand, as if the gospel was something that was experienced by the mind and not the heart.

I think one reason people make Christianity so complex is that the truth of the gospel isn't actually what they want in a religion. My experience talking with people about their faith (Christian or otherwise) is that people "just want to know what to do". They want some set of rules they can follow and know they are "OK". They want to be told what constraints God imposes on their lives so they can plan their lives within those constraints. While they would never speak in those terms, it as if religion were a game – "Tell me the rules and then leave me alone to do the best I can within those rules".

The problem is Christianity isn't actually about rules. It isn't about what you do. It is about attitudes – your attitude about God, about other people, and about yourself. Now if you have your attitude right, the result will be good actions; but the point is not your actions; but your attitudes. That's what I think Jesus was talking about in Matthew 5:27-48 ("….You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart…." and so on). It's not what you do that really matters, it's your attitude (which should also result in your doing the right things).

The problem is that attitudes are not something you can learn in your mind and act out in your life and be done with it. You may know you should love people and even act lovingly towards them; but if you don't actually love them in your heart, then you are missing the mark. The good news in all this is that in Christianity there really isn't a lot you need learn to be everything God wants you to be. The bad news is that the process of cultivating those attitudes takes forever. A minute to learn, a lifetime to master.

Long ago I had a pastor who frequently commented that we needed to keep in mind that "Christianity is actually an Eastern Religion, not a Western one." At the time, I was clueless what he meant (beyond the geopolitical truth of the statement); but in hindsight, I think he was trying to make the same point as I am here. Eastern religions tend to focus more on attitudes and relationships. The Buddhist concept of enlightenment is not something one can achieve by knowing something or by doing something; it comes about by cultivating an attitude towards the universe and your place in it. My understanding of Christianity may differ in some of the attitudes to be encouraged (while sharing others); but is very similar in concept.

Likewise Zen Koans (parables) are not meant to teach thoughts and facts; but (by their inherent paradoxes) are meant to encourage attitudes about what is real and knowable. I think one reason Jesus so often taught in parables is that they speak to the heart as well as (and sometimes instead of) the mind. I can make the statement "God loves you no matter what you have done", and in your mind you can acknowledge that as a truth. Or I could tell you the parable of the prodigal son, with the father rushing out to meet the wayward son at the end. The fundamental truth is the same; but the parable speaks to the heart – it helps you feel what the father feels towards his son. You don't just know the truth, you can feel it.

Of course, the Jewish scholars of Jesus' day had turned Judaism into the ultimate western religion – all about knowing and following a set of rules, and ignoring the attitudes behind them. They were not open to the heart-truths the Jesus was sharing, so they couldn't get what he was talking about with his parables, while the crowds (who were also Jewish; but not professional scholars) were able to get the message. Perhaps that's why I find myself resorting to allegories so often.

Posted by Steven at 03:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

January 02, 2006

Life : Best Vacation Ever

OK, perhaps not ever; but this is certainly one of the best vacations I have had in a long time.

I got enough practical stuff (like cleaning my home office area) done to feel like I accomplished something; but I didn't try to do so much that I ended up needing a vacation from my vacation. I actually got into a relaxed state and managed to stay there for a whole week at least. I spent some good time with Anne, had meals with friends, read a half-dozen books, got caught up on Tivo and DVDs, and saw some good movies. All in all, a very nice break, and I do feel ready to go back to work tomorrow.

Work tomorrow... Aaaack!

Posted by Steven at 03:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

January 04, 2006

Observations : Steve's Law #1, reprise

I have previously posted the first of my own collection of laws (why should Major Edward A. Murphy, Jr. have all of the fun?):

"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by mere incompetence."

I've been thinking about this a bit more of late, and how this is derived from a more fundamental truth - that people are not as conscious of each other most of them think. It is very easy for people to observe someone else's behavior (the words they use, their body language, etc.) and read into it things like "they hate me", "they think I'm ugly", "they think I'm a fool", etc. when the unfortunate truth is the other person is not thinking about them at all.

The reality is that most people in the world, most of the time are so consumed by their own insecurities, their own problems, their own feelings; that they put very little energy into thinking about other people. And when they do think about other people, it is usually to figure out what the other person is thinking about them. The result is that what we see in other people is often just a reflection of our own insecurities.

As a result, many "relationships" (whether as friends or enemies) end up being like a pair of mirrors facing each other - reflecting their images back and forth but having no actual content. I react to what I think you are thinking about me based on superficial data and my own insecurities, and you react to that, and I react back, and so on. No real understanding of each other is involved, just an endless series of reflections of our own images projected onto each other.

What's truly sad is the amount of power we give to other people this way. We react to what we think other people think of us, and by doing that we give them power over us (after all, we are allowing them to effect our actions). The other person is often completely unaware of the power we have given them (and may not be very aware of us in general). Is it any wonder that in their ignorance they miss-use that power?

This trend is particularly problematical in families. We all have an innate expectation that we are important to our relatives; but quite often, that is simply not true. Often our relatives are people just like us with their own set of issues which consume their thinking. They may have very little "mind-share" available to really think about the others in the family and how their own actions effect the rest of the family - they are too busy thinking about how other people's actions effect them.

It takes a person who is very secure in their own identity and their place in the universe to get to the point of really considering what other people are going through; to think about how their actions affect other people. One needs to be at a point where it doesn't matter what other people think of you because you already know who you are. That then releases you from the burden of interpreting what other people think of you, and frees you to then actually think about them. This is the ideal to which we should all strive. However, while we struggle to reach that place, we need to be careful not to assume other people are already there - that they are actually conscious of their actions towards us. It is far safer to assume that other people (even family members) are unaware of how they affect us.

Posted by Steven at 07:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (13)

January 05, 2006

Faith : Staying in Touch

The basis for many classic stories goes something like this. A man and a woman meet and fall in love. He writes love letters and poetry for her and they spend time together until he finally proposes and she accepts the offer to become his wife. There is however one catch - he must leave town for many months to take care of some business; but he assures her that when he returns, they will be wed. So he leaves town and she is left reading his old love letters and poetry to keep the memory of her fiancé alive. Weeks turn to months, and months turn to years; and no word comes from the man. Eventually the woman begins to doubt that the man is still alive; and if he is, if he ever truly loved her. After all, if he loved her, he should have been able to find some way to let her know what is happening and when he will return.

Now where things go from there differs from story to story; but the point I want to latch on to is that every variation on this assumes that the audience will be sympathetic to the woman's plight. We expect that if someone loves someone else, that they will make an effort to stay in contact if they are away for a time, and that something must be wrong if they don't.

So my question is - why do Christians not expect this of an omnipotent God who they believe loves them?

When Jesus came to this world in the flesh, he said he loved us but he had to go away for a while; but he promised that he would come back some day for us. In the New Testament, the collection of Christians as a whole are often referred to metaphorically as the "bride of Christ", and the final event of this age is referred to as the "wedding feast of the Lamb (Jesus)". So at least in metaphor, we are just like the woman waiting for her fiancé to return to her. Likewise, we have the Bible to serve as the "love letters and poetry" which he has left behind for us to cherish and remember him with.

My observation is that a great many Christians are content with the idea that they just have to continue to wait patiently, reading the same letters over and over, with no expectation that God actually wants to express his love by communicating with them directly. Yes, from our side of the relationship, we should be willing to take it by faith that Jesus is real, that he loves us, and that he is coming back some day; but I'm suggesting looking at the situation for a moment from God's perspective. If we expect normal, flawed human beings who love each other to make extraordinary efforts to stay in contact when they are physically apart, how much more should we expect God, whose love is perfect and whose abilities are unlimited, to want to communicate with each of us now.

The bottom line is I believe God's love for us compels him to want to communicate personally with each of us on an ongoing basis; and if that communication isn't happening, the problem is not on God's end of things, but with we Christians. For some of us, we just talk so much when we pray, they we don't give God a chance to get a word in edgewise. Experiencing God's communication requires a willingness to be still and silent in God's presence. For some of us, we believe that while God may love humanity in general, he does not actually love us individually, personally; and therefore have no reason to expect God to communicate with us. For some of us, we don't think God communicating with us is rational. In this modern age, we no longer expect the supernatural, and thus reduce our expectations of God to the natural. But what's the point in believing in a natural God? For some of us, we have just heard too many stories of lunatics saying "but God told me to do it" that we don't honestly want to actually experience communication from God because we are afraid of what might happen. If we are not open to the possibility of communication we may not understand it when it occurs.

In all this we deprive ourselves of the intimacy of having a personal, individual relationship with God as opposed to a generic one; of knowing that God doesn't just care about humanity, he cares about each of us as individuals. I believe God is calling each of us, wanting to be a part of our lives; it's up to us to answer the call.

Posted by Steven at 05:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

January 06, 2006

TV : Best (scripted) TV shows ever

So after I did my piece on Buffy, I started to think about what other shows I would put into that category. I haven't been able to find a good source for "every TV show broadcast in America", so there may be some good ones I have just forgotten; but here's my top 10 list so far. Because these shows have very different reasons for being on my list, I find it impossible to establish an order between them, so I'm listing them in chronological order.

The Ernie Kovacs Show (1952-1956)
Ernie Kovacs was a true innovator. At a time when most TV shows were "Radio with Pictures" or "Theatre in your living room", Ernie dared to ask "What could you do with television because it was television and not radio, theatre, or the movies?" Among other things, he invented various camera tricks and techniques that are still used today. His show was a collection of comedy skits; but he constantly played with both the format and technical aspects of the show. The show would almost certainly seem "old hat" to a modern audience; but you have to keep in mind, Ernie was the guy who invented the "hat".

Playhouse 90 (1956-1961)
The show that (amongst other things ) gave us writer Rod Serling, director John Frankenheimer, and episodes like "Requiem for a Heavyweight", "A Town Has Turned To Dust", "Alas, Babylon", "The Days of Wine and Roses", "The Miracle Worker", "Judgment at Nuremberg", "Invitation to a Gunfighter", "Project Immortality" (most of which were eventually made into movies). This is the first television show to really attract top writers to the small screen, and it remains some of the best comedy and drama ever produced for television.

The Twilight Zone (1959-1964)
The Twilight Zone said more about the human condition than any show since, and said it better than most of the shows that followed. Of the shows in my list, this is the first that I would also call a "classic" in the sense that I expect people 100 years form now to still be watching it.

All in the Family (1971-1979)
This show not only had something to say; but what it had to say was something a lot of people didn't want to hear. Bottom line, this show opened the door to dealing with tough issues on television. We'd still be watching shows where the big crisis was that the wife burned the roast if it wasn't for the Bunkers. Of course credit must be given to Johnny Speight who created "Till Death Do Us Part" for the BBC (the show on which All in the Family was based)

M*A*S*H (1972-1983)
While this was one of the first shows I added to my list, I went back and forth on it many times. The reality is that most of the episodes in the early seasons were pure formula, and it took a while for the show to find its "voice". But once it did, it was amazing. It had three characteristics which I come back to time and time again in this list:
- It had something to say, not just about war (which is certainly spoke eloquently on), but about people in general.
- It was not confined by its genre. Was it a Drama? A Comedy? A Medical show? A Military show? The fact that it mixed outrageous comedy with deep pathos (just like real life) was part of what made it special.
- It was willing to experiment with its format. There was the dream episode, the interview episode, etc. The show's writers were willing to try new things to tell their story.

Moonlighting (1985-1989)
After Ernie Kovacs, I think Moonlighting did more than any show to experiment with what a TV show is. Mixing genre's (who ever heard of a comedy detective show back then?), breaking the fourth wall on TV, experimenting with format (Shakespeare, musicals, etc.) Now I'll grant that not every experiment worked; but enough did to make an amazing show.

Babylon 5 (1994-1998)
The show that added the phrase "a five year arc" to the Hollywood lexicon (we would not have shows like Lost if it wasn't for Babylon 5). In addition to telling a single coherent story over 5 seasons (a story that had a lot to say about humanity), the show also had a deep impact on how TV series are made. The idea of any TV show, much less a science fiction show with complicated special effects, returning money to the studio at the end of each season because they came in under budget is unheard of; but B5 did it. This show will be used as a master class for how to produce TV for years to come.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997-2003)
I've already expressed myself on this, so I'll say no more.

The West Wing (1999-????)
The show that made political discourse interesting. While the show has dropped off in the last few seasons, the writing of seasons 1-3 was some of the best that has appeared on TV since Playhouse 90. It also has a lot to say about both people and politics. I was temped to actually put "Sports Night" on my list instead (same writers); but the fact that West Wing did occasionally succeed at explaining complex political problems put it over the top.

In terms of the current crop of shows, given more time I could see either "Over There" or "Battlestar Galactica (2004)" bumping one of these off my list someday. We'll see.

Posted by Steven at 06:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

January 07, 2006

Books : The First Five Pages

The First Five Pages
A Writer's Guide to Staying Out of the Rejection Pile
By Noah Lukeman

Just finished this short book of advice to writers, written by a literary agent. It reminded me a great deal of a seminar I once went to that was taught by Kevin J. Anderson (co-author of the recent Dune books) and his wife Rebecca Moesta (also a successful author). The seminar was titled "Things we wish someone had told us when we were starting out writing".

The centerpiece of the talk (at least for me) was their description of the Saturday they were invited over to their publisher's house to help him with the weekly "sorting of the slush pile". An Editor's/Publisher's/Agent's slush pile is the stack of all of the unsolicited manuscripts they receive each week from unknown writers. Manuscripts that have been requested, or are written by recognized authors are automatically pulled for consideration; but the bulk that remain have to fight their way to make the first cut. In Kevin and Rebecca's example, they had over one hundred manuscripts that they and their publisher had to sort through in about five hours; from which they could select only three that the publisher would have time to actually read that week. Not to mention that only one every two or three weeks would actually be selected for publication from the slush pile.

The key lesson from that experience was that this first cut had absolutely nothing to do with finding good books to publish – it was entirely about finding quick excuses to reject a manuscript from consideration. Anything was fair game – from the kind of paper it was printed on, to using too many commas in the first sentence. When you have to run through 20-30 manuscripts an hour, you don't have time to consider artistic merit. The point is that not only do you need a great book to get published, but you also can't give any excuse whatsoever for the publisher not to read it.

The book "The First Five Pages" is very much about the same lesson. As an agent who spends 10-12 hours a day working to support the few manuscripts he has chosen to promote, but who gets hundreds of unsolicited manuscripts a week to consider; he too needs to be brutal in finding quick ways to cull his slush pile quickly. At most he reads the first five pages and five random pages from the middle of the book, and that only if he can not find quicker ways to eliminate the book (bad font, wrong margins). Most of what Lukeman talks about are things I have heard at WorldCon seminars I have attended; but for those who have not had that opportunity, I would certainly recommend the book.

Posted by Steven at 02:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

January 09, 2006

Observations : Things I have learned about writing

Talking about "The First Five Pages" got me thinking about other lessons I have learned about writing and getting published by talking to other successful (as opposed to aspiring) writers.

We all do it differently.
For all of the writers I have had opportunity to speak to, there have been no two that have approached the act of writing the same way. To cover a couple of extremes, I have met authors who meticulously outline and plan their stories in advance – who don't write a paragraph until they know what they need to say on that page and that chapter. I have also met (very) successful writers who experience the story as they write it, with only the vaguest idea of where it is headed – they simply write the story as it appear in their head and trust their subconscious to organize it (which for these people, it does). This is why I tend to avoid "how to write" books – they generally reflect how that particular author writes; but that's only helpful to a small percent of the population who happens to write the same way.

The difference between publishing short fiction and novels
I talked with an editor for a major publisher who started his career working for a magazine that published short fiction. I always found his insights to be interesting. The short version (to quote him as best as I remember (so you can blame him for the sexism)) "Publishing short fiction is like a series of one night stands. You don't care about the woman's personality as long as she is good in bed. Publishing a novel is more like getting married. Yeah, you want the sex to be good; but that's only a part of it".

The point he was making (he explained) is that short fiction magazines are all about getting the best stories you can get with minimal effort into each issue. The only rule is that you need one story each issue from a "name" author that you can list on the front to entice people to buy the issue off the newsstand. Other than that, you want the most interesting stories you can get that don't require a lot of editing. The profit margins aren't high enough to worry about editing too much – you make some requests of the author; but if the next revision isn't good enough, you go on to the next story. It's all about the story. It doesn't matter if the author is a jerk because you aren't spending a lot of time dealing with them (none, if the story doesn't need any editing). You agree on a price and that's it (which made me think of a slightly different analogy….)

Novels however are a very different story (he continued). The number one factor in what novels people buy is the author – if the customer liked a previous book by that author, they'll buy more for them. The number two factor isn't even close. So in novel publishing, author's names are brands which have to be established and maintained. For a publishing house to agree to publish a novel means that they are making a long term commitment to that person – to build up their name as a brand and then (if the first book succeeds) take advantage of that investment by publishing more books by then. It's not uncommon these days for first time authors to have to sign contracts to deliver more books to that publisher; otherwise it won't be worth the publisher's effort. To maximize the success of the book, a publishing house is willing to invest a fair bit in helping the author edit the book. All of that means that people at the publishing house are going to spend a lot of time with the author. So while good writing is a factor, being able to work with the person is also important. They'd rather publish a good novel by someone who is easy to work with than a great novel by someone who is flaky or a jerk.

Which is why (I have been told by multiple published writers) conventions like WorldCon are so important – they give editors a chance to size up a writer on a personal level. If they like you, then they can ask you to send them your manuscript (which, depending on how they ask, means it may be "solicited" and therefore is one step ahead of the multitudes in the slush pile). Of course, it only works if you don't make a fool of yourself talking to them; but that's a subject for another day.

Posted by Steven at 07:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

January 13, 2006

Life : Busy week

The lack of posts this week has been a reflection of my mindshare and time being consumed by other things. There is a co-worker in town from our London office that we have been spending some time with after work. There have also been some interesting discussions on my church's mailing list which I have been involved in which have used up many of my writing cycles. Some of that thinking may eventually be reflected in posts here; but I'm not there yet. I just wanted folks to know that I am otherwise OK.

Posted by Steven at 05:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

January 14, 2006

Faith : Doing Church (Part 1)

We don't know a lot about how church meetings were conducted by the first century church. My personal opinion is that this is according to God's plan – he didn't want us to get stuck in some version of the mechanics of worship. He knew that human nature would make it easy for people to focus on the ritual instead of the relationship, that "doing it right" would become more important than the reason why we were doing it. By not knowing how those first Christians "did it", we are freer to find our own ways to express and experience our relationship with God and with each other.

Unfortunately, in much of the world, Christians became fixed on a pattern anyway. Go to almost any church in Europe or the Americas and you see the same thing. Several songs will be performed and/or sung; an offering will be taken; a reading of scripture will occur; a leader will present some lesson; the Lord's Supper will be shared; and finally an opportunity for prayer will be presented. There are minor variations (the Lord's Supper might not be shared at every meeting, the reading of scripture might be incorporated into the lesson, etc.) but at a high level, it's all pretty much the same.

This pattern has dominated Christianity for about 1500 years. There have been some minor innovations. The kinds of music have changed. Average church members are sometimes allowed to participate in minor roles (although in most churches the "important stuff" remains the responsibility of "the professionals").

In my reading of church history, there has really only been one true innovator who was willing to throw tradition out and start from just the scripture to determine what a "church meeting" should look like – George Fox, the founder of the Religious Society of Friends (commonly known as the Quakers).

Fox began with the principle that every Christian has within them the "inner light" of God and that no intermediary was needed between God and His people. Among Christian theologians this is known as the doctrine of "the priesthood of all believers"; but Fox took that common protestant doctrine and carried it to its ultimate conclusion. If all Christians had that inner light, then they all had the ability to minister equally, so no clergy was needed. The "church" (Fox actually avoided using that term) might need administrators to organize things; but worship and ministry was the equal responsibility of all Christians.

He furthermore observed that what was desired was to allow God to minister to His people, not to have Christians minister to each other from their own flawed ability. The source of worship and ministry should not be the Christian's own mind and flesh; but the "inner light" within them. Fox wanted people to focus on listening and sharing what God was doing in that moment as opposed to preparing something to share in advance (which would temp people to use their human skills as opposed to listening to God).

The result of all this was a rather unique meeting structure – the "silent" service.

People gather, settle down, and when the service formally begins they will become silent – each individually seeking God; applying the scripture "be still and know that I am God". Occasionally, someone will get the sense of something God wants them to say, and they will stand, share it, and then sit down and be silent again. Commenting on what someone has shared is discouraged, and in fact speaking soon after someone else has spoken is also discouraged – people are to be given time to consider what was said (and to judge for themselves if it was actually what God wanted to communicate). A service might have several people speak; but it is also possible to have a service which is completely silent with no one sharing. A key point is that the service is not "a few people ministering, separated by silence"; but that the silence itself is an act of worship into which God inserts His message as He wills. The meeting ends when a designated individual shakes the hand of the person next to them, at which point everyone shakes each other's hand and the service is ended (except for announcements which are typically done at this time).

How's that for a different way to "do church"?

Now personally, I think this may swing too far in the other direction. In general, the Religious Society of Friends puts so much emphasis on each Christian's "inner light" that I fear they de-emphasize the scripture too much in the process. There are even branches of the modern Quaker movement that I would find it difficult to call "Christian" any more. I think a balance needs to be found between the foundations of doctrine in the Bible and the current experience of God. However, as a mode of worship and ministry, I find much to praise in the Quaker's approach.

Posted by Steven at 03:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (10)

January 15, 2006

Faith : Doing Church (Part 2)

The best church I was ever part of wasn't actually a church ­ at least not in the way most people think of "church". We had no name, no formal organization, no official leaders, no building, no program. We were just a gathering of Christians. That's all; but that was more than enough.

We were a bunch of Christian friends who were actually members of at least three different churches (one Catholic, one Baptist, and one Pentecostal). How we all came to be friends is a long story which I'll not share here other than to say that this was not something that was deliberately organized by any person (other than God). No one set out to create an interdenominational group of Christian friends, it just happened. At its peak, I think there were about 30 of us who had all become friends with each other.

We all attended our separate church meetings on Sunday and whenever else they occurred (for instance, the Baptist church had a mid-week prayer meetings). But as friends do, we'd get together with each other through the week. Someone would call someone else and ask "Hey, you want to get together tonight?", and after a bit of phone tag you'd usually you'd find 6-8 people who were free that night and you'd get together at someone's house. It would be different people on different nights, depending on who was available and interested. I recall I joined in an average of once a week, although the sense I had was that some subset of the group got together just about every night. There was no one actually organizing this, so it's hard to know.

Now most groups of friends have some common interests which drive what they do when they get together. I've been part of one group of friends who liked to play games, and so when we got together we'd play games. Other groups of friends go to movies together, or watch sports. Well, the common interest of this group of friends was that we were all Christians, and so when we got together, we would share our faith. We'd sit together and talk and sing and pray and eat and talk some more. One person might comment on a Bible verse they had read that week that they didn't understand, and other people would explain what they thought it meant. Or someone might have read something really cool in the Bible and would talk about it. Another person might talk about a problem they were having and the rest of the people would pray for them. Someone might share a story about how they were telling a co-worker about Jesus. Another person might talk about what they thought God was doing, or share some specific insight with the group. There was usually someone who could play the guitar and when the conversation slowed down we'd sing a song or two and get back to talking.

Now that might not sound a lot like "a church" to some people; but I believe that in every respect that God cares about, it was a church, and a great one at that. We were a people who were connected with God and with each other. We were a community that worshiped God, ministered to each other, and supported each other in sharing our faith with others. The only thing I would expect from a church now that I don't recall us doing then was caring for the needy in the community.

Now after doing this for a year or two, certain patterns emerged. Some people were good at praying for each other. Others were good at leading singing. Others opened their homes up for us to meet in (and usually provided food as well). There were people who were good at explaining things ­- they were the teachers. There were people who kept good track of how people were doing and made sure they were getting help if they needed it -­ they were the pastors. There were people who seemed to have a sense of the "big picture" of what God was doing ­- they were the apostles. Other folks always seemed to have more specific, short-term direction -­ they were the prophets. Still others were always talking about who they were sharing the gospel with ­- the evangelists. No one used those titles; but we all knew after a while who to talk to about what. What's more important is that everyone did something. We were friends first and foremost, so everyone joined in the conversations, everyone participated.

Now the sad part of the story is that after I moved out of that area, some of the group tried to actually create a "real" independent church together. Within a few years they got caught up in some Christian fad movement and ended up lost in the doctrinal weeds. Last I heard several had become so discouraged that they'd given up on Christianity all together. But for a while, there was a church that God created his own way, and it was wonderful.

Posted by Steven at 04:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

January 16, 2006

TV : Midseason Blues

We just passed though the start of the midseason replacements on television in the US. This is when the networks, having cancelled half of the series they started the season the season with, launch a few new shows to fill out the depleted schedule.

Historically, midseason replacements have tended to have a bit better track record with me than the shows networks start the season with. I might "keep" one or two new shows of the thirty that start the season (say a 5% success rate), and another one or two of the ten shows added midseason (a 15% success rate). The reason is simple. I have never had any illusions that I represent the target market for American television, so the shows the networks put on in September are meant to appeal to someone else. The shows that networks hold back for midseason tend to be more niche products – shows that they believe are good; but appeal to a more limited audience – often people like me. So, normally I do quite well midseason.

Not this year.

Of all of the midseason replacements I checked out, only one had any real virtue in my book - "In Justice". I don't think I'm going to watch it regularly; but I recognize that the show is well done and is trying to do something interesting. We have had police (and justice) dramas that focus on catching and convicting the criminals, and we have has law dramas that focus on defending innocent individuals. In Justice is about trying to overturn convictions after they occur, and as such the focus of the show is on the kinds of mistakes and errors which can occur when the police and D.A. try to solve a crime. Think of it as the other side of the coin from the "Law and Order" series. The writing is good (not great, but good), some of the characters have multiple dimensions (and there is reason to hope that the rest will be fleshed out). If I didn't have so many other things to do with my time, I'd watch it.

What about the rest of the shows? They all had serious flaws in my opinion. A common thread is "collection of misfits" ensemble where every character seems to be defined by their flaw. Now I'm all for flawed characters. Rich, complex, interesting characters almost always have flaws. The problem is I saw several shows the last two weeks where the only thing memorable about any of the characters was their flaws. Without some redeeming value, some reason to root for a character; I see no reason to watch.

There's one show I feel compelled to comment on specifically because news reports have made it out to be controversial (I have to wonder if that's just a publicity ploy). That's "The book of Daniel". Apparently there are groups who have attacked the show because it is Anti-Christian and sacrilegious. In some people's opinions, portraying a religious leader who is flawed and whose family is having problems is a bad thing. I disagree – real religious leaders are human beings and are therefore flawed, and because their families are human too, they also have problems. I think there is a great opportunity for a TV series that showed that struggle honestly and compassionately – even to the point of showing such people doing the wrong things (perhaps for "good reasons") on occasion. The problem I have with The Book of Daniel is that the characters were one dimensional (see "collection of misfits" above) and their actions unbelievable.

The other interesting observation this season is that the whole idea of midseason replacements may be fading away. Networks are now reserving successful shows ("24" for instance) to not start until January and then run them without re-runs until the end of he season. This, together with cable networks counter-programming (starting their shows just as the networks go into re-runs), and the whole idea of "television seasons" may be changing. I have no idea if this will actually have an effect on the quality of shows produced; but staggering the start of show more might give new programs a chance to find their audience without the competition they face each September.

BTW – I have updated my "shows I watch" list on my about page. Its getting shorter and shorter.

Posted by Steven at 05:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

January 17, 2006

Books : Everything Bad Is Good for You

Everything Bad Is Good for You:
How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter
by Steven Johnson

Finished this book last night. The essential argument of the book is that videogames, television and the internet have significant (and different) beneficial effects on brain development. These benefits are different from those gained by reading books, and that many of the people who call these new media "bad for you" base their argument on the fact that video games, etc. do not do what books do. Steven Johnson agrees with that observation; but also points out that it is equally true that books do not benefit people in the ways that video games, etc. do.

Johnson evens goes so far as to propose that these new media are the reason behind the Flynn Effect (political scientist James R. Flynn's discovery that IQs have been increasing an average of 3% per decade in developing countries). He even uses more recent studies of the kinds of tests/questions that people have been doing better at over the last two decades and notes that the majority of the improvement has been in problem solving, pattern matching, and filling in missing information, which Johnson claims are exactly the kinds of skills that videogames increase. I'm not sure I personally buy this part of his argument; but his data is certainly interesting.

The most interesting part of the book for me, as someone who is very interested in television as a medium (for those who hadn't noticed), is Johnson analysis of the increasing complexity of TV shows over the last 40 years. He describes four metrics (parallel plotlines, frame breaking (having to go outside of an episode to understand the episode), complexity of character relationships, and implied information (not telling the audience things; but letting them figure them out)); and using shows from the 60's, 80's and 2000's shows how each metric has increased significantly over that time.

I have experienced this myself, although I couldn't articulate it. I've had the opportunity lately (either in re-runs or DVDs) to watch some older TV shows which I loved when originally aired, only to find them unsatisfying now. I was able to discount this effect for shows I watched as a child (I am, after all, an adult now); but even shows I watched as an adult have lost their luster. Having now read Johnson's book, I can see clearly the issue. The old shows typically had at most 2 plots, with only 4-8 switches between plots in an episode. There were a small number of characters with easily understood relationships. The shows almost never referenced things outside of the episode, and were explicit about telling me everything I needed to know to understand the story (with characters saying to each other "You know, this means…." just so it was clear). As someone who is now used to watching Lost and the new Battlestar Galactica, it was like watching children's programming.

Johnson's point in all this is: if television is responsible for the dumbing-down of America, you'd expect TV shows to be getting more simple not more complex. Instead, the trend indicates that there is increasing demand for more complex television, which he believes is tied to the brain's reward mechanisms. Letting the viewer figure things out triggers an "aha" mechanism which gives positive feedback through neurotransmitters, meaning people will tend to like more challenging TV as long as it isn't too challenging. Furthermore, Johnson observes with syndication and TV shows on DVD, shows that reward repeated viewings by hiding interesting but non-essential data also have an advantage (of which Lost would seem to be an ideal example – you almost have to watch each season twice).

I'm going to have to think more about his ideas before I decide if I agree; but this book certainly adds a lot to the debate about the value of the new media.

Posted by Steven at 06:02 PM | Permalink

January 18, 2006

Faith : The main and the plain

I was introduced to God at a church where the pastor was a noted expert on eschatology (the study of the "end times" – the book of revelations, etc.). At the time I didn't know better so I absorbed all he taught on the subject and assumed it was all true (I didn't learn to be a skeptic about my faith until later). When I was finally exposed to other points of view (there are many different doctrinal positions on eschatology), I was bothered by the fact that I might be believing the wrong thing, so I made an effort to research and form my own opinions.

This process continued whenever I was faced with the realization that there were questions of doctrine that Christians didn't agree on – free will vs. predestination, cessationism vs continuationism, the Filoque clause, etc. (if these terms mean nothing to you, be happy). It was important to me to have a position on all of the doctrines and that my position be right.

But here's the thing – the vast majority of the doctrinal positions I carefully formed had no effect on my every day Christian life other than to provide a means to divide (at least at a subconscious level) myself from other Christians. Note, I like to think I have always been loving and accepting of Christians who have held other views; but I have to admit that deep down there was always a sense of superiority (I'm right and they are wrong) that grew like a cancer on such relationships.

It wasn't until later in my Christian walk that I realized that all of my doctrinal certainty wasn't actually helping and might be hurting. After much prayer and consideration I adopted a new approach. If I couldn't see a way a particular doctrinal issue would effect how I lived my life today, next week, next month, next year; then it didn't matter and I would not invest my energy into taking a position. I would still try to understand the various positions so I could understand other Christians for whom these questions were important; but as long as I understood the various points of view, it didn't matter to me who was right unless I could apply the answer to my life.

Its amazing how much this approach simplified my Christianity. My view on eschatology has been reduced to four statements: 1) Jesus is coming back someday, 2) the world as we know it will be radically changed someday, 3) everyone will face a final reckoning before God someday, and 4) all of this may happen in my life so I should live accordingly. The rest (pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib, a-trib, pre-mil, a-mil, post-mil, etc. etc. etc) are just details.

Add to this that one doctrine I accept as true (it does effect my life, so I had to take a position) is that I am to obey God. I find that given that one position, a lot of other questions fall away. What about those who have never heard the gospel? I don't know. What I do know is that God has told Christians to spread the gospel and I need to obey. So as long as I focus on that obedience, I don't see how the doctrinal issue of "those who have never heard" affects my life, so there is no need to form an option.

By simplifying my faith in this way, I find I can work together with other Christians of other backgrounds without any issues from my end. The desire for unity in the church is a doctrine which does effect how I live, and I believe it is critical to God's plan. They key is to know what matters – what compromises should not be made in the name of unity. My little rule has served me well in deciding such issues.

Posted by Steven at 06:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

January 22, 2006

Faith : Uncensoring myself

My intent in writing this blog is that it would reflect the kinds of things I'm thinking about at the time; perhaps delayed by a bit to give me time to formulate an explanation. There are of course limits. I don't talk about work for reasons of corporate confidentiality. Likewise if I had some disagreement with Anne, I would unlikely talk about it here. I might post some introspection on my own faults (it is my choice to expose myself here); but you'll never find me complaining about Anne here except in jest. I find exposing someone else's faults to be unseemly, and airing a family's dirty laundry in public to be inappropriate.

And therein lay the rub.

Much of my thinking since mid-December has been focused on what is wrong with The Church. Not the small gathering of believers I meet with on Sundays, Tuesdays, and other occasions; but the Christian Church overall, or at least the American Church that I know. While this subject has occupied a great deal of my mental effort, I didn't feel comfortable talking about it in a public place like this blog. These were issues "within the family" and I was reluctant to talk about them openly. When I could find ways to present my thoughts in a positive manner – talking about what I liked, what I wanted, I did so; but that left a great deal of my mental energy unrepresented here.

Then, as I pondered the comments I got on my "Doing Church" posts, I realized I was fooling myself. That the Christian Church in America has problems is no family secret to be hidden – too many people have been affected by its failings. The common complaints against Christians in America are not generally a matter of persecution (as some believers quickly cry); they are legitimate complaints about the way churches operate. Those Christians who recognize the problems can say to the nation "but that's not 'real' Christianity" all we want; but it is the only Christianity that most people see.

Now there already are good blogs on the web that talk about what is wrong with the Church in America; mostly intended for other Christians to read. I have no intention of adding mine to that list. If anyone is interested I can direct you to one that I almost completely agree with (I only discovered after reading the blog for a while that I had even gone to the same church as the author for a few months). My point is only that I will stop censoring myself on this point, and given the backlog of thinking I have done on this point, you might see a cluster of posts on the subject in the next couple of weeks.

Posted by Steven at 05:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

January 23, 2006

Faith : Another data point

I meant to include these in yesterday's post but forgot.

Here's a fact for the American Christian Church to ponder. There are now denominations based in Nigeria and Uganda (at least – there may be others I am unaware of) who are sending missionaries to the United States to reach "the lost" here. Think about that for a moment – African churches now see the need to send missionaries to the USA. They recognize that we have dozens of churches in every city and plenty of people who show up at them. What they doubt is that there are many people in the USA who actually know God. BTW – the Nigerian group has also planted churches in Russia, and one has become the fastest growing church in that nation, despite some serious racial bias against Africans there.

There is also a major South Korean church who is actively praying that persecution would come to the American Christian Church. Not the "I don't like how they made Christians look foolish on that TV show" or "My boss made me take down my 'Jesus Saves' poster from my office" type "persecution" that I have heard Christians here whine about; but serious life-on-the-line type persecution. These Koreans believe if nothing else it would sort out those who really believe from those who go to church out of habit or as a convenient social club. I'm not willing to go that far; but recognize there is truth in what they say. One reason the Ugandan church is so strong these days is the purification it went through under the persecution by Idi Amin.

Posted by Steven at 09:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

January 24, 2006

Books : In praise of JMS

I have mentioned here before that only one author, Orson Scott Card, has managed to get me to cry while reading his stories, and that Card has managed to accomplish feat using only his well-crafted words on several occasions. Well, I now have to modify at least the first part of that statement. I am reading "Straczynski Unplugged", a collection of short stories written by J Michael Straczynski, and JMS's ability to communicate pain, sadness, loss with language on the page has managed to bring me to tears a couple of times already.

For those who do not recognize the name, J Michael Straczynski is best known for his Television work – creating "Babylon 5" (including writing 92 of the 110 scripts) and its spins offs, writing and producing "Jeremiah" for Showtime, as well as writing 11 of the episodes of the 1985 (not 1959 or 2002) version of Twilight Zone.

JMS is also well known for his work in "graphic novels" (i.e. serious comic books). Anyone who doubts that "comics" can, in the hands of a real writer, reach the level of "literature" should read JMS's "Midnight Nation". All twelve issues have been collected into single book, and it is well worth reading. The sad irony of the end of issue 4 is up there with anything that Rod Serling ever did (its all about fear and taking responsibility – themes JMS returns to often), and the climax in issue 11 is the best presentation of what sacrifice really means that I have seen. Note, his more recent work for Marvel, while better than your average comics, is not in the same class as his independent/small-press work in this medium.

JMS has also done a small amount of work in traditional print media, including the collection I am reading now. He also has a couple of novels he wrote early in his career which I will eventually get around to (although I have heard other people comment that they are a bit rougher than his current work).

JMS's other great contribution has been his participation on the Internet. Long before there were "blogs", JMS was very active online using bulletin boards and newsgroups to give anyone who was interested a "behind the scenes" look at how television was made, telling stories about the writing and production of Babylon 5. His output to the web each week was so high you had to wonder when he found time to write the scripts. He also told many personal stories, so (to get back to where this post started), it is easy to understand where all of the pain, sadness, and loss in his writing comes from.

As a Christian, I find JMS to be a fascinating individual. While he professes to be an atheist, he has consistently provided the most sympathetic and realistic portrayals of "people of faith" I have seen on television. What other Science Fiction shows have had Catholic Monks, a Baptist Preacher, and a Rabbi as positive recurring characters? Or a character (Mr. Smith in Jeremiah) who "talks with god" but is taken seriously by the show. Even Midnight Nation can be read as a kind of Christian allegory, although I think JMS's point was more about "average" people being willing to make sacrifices for each other.

Posted by Steven at 06:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

January 25, 2006

Books , Faith : The Churching of America

The Churching of America
Winners And Losers In Our Religious Economy
by Roger Finke, Rodney Stark

I read this book several years ago; but the ideas in it have continued to influence my thinking. Since I recently recommended it in one of my comment replies I thought I should provide a more complete explanation of what it is.

In brief, Stark and Finke are secular sociologists (actually I know at least Stark is an active Christian; but his work as a sociologist is secular). Together, they developed an explanation of religious decisions based on the "rational choice" model of sociology (a fairly modern trend that uses the language and mechanics of economics to describe and explain non-economic sociological behavior – the idea being that all human interactions can be explained as being based on rational cost/benefit trade-offs). I'll not comment on the value of the "rational choice" model in general (I have seen it applied in ways which seem forced); but I think Stark and Finke's model of religious behavior is quite good. "The Churching of America" is then a very easy to read application of their theory to the denominational history of the Christian Church in America. By the way, if you want to see their theory in its pure form (and can deal with a fairly academic sociology text), they have published it in the book "Acts of Faith" which I also recommend.

I've tried a few times to give a brief write-up of their theory; but always ended up running into multiple pages and still did not do their model justice. So instead, I'll just comment on what their theory predicts if you create a "religious free market" as exists in the United States.

What they predict is a regular "sect to church" cycle. You start off with a "mainstream" denomination which is accepted by the community. The denomination does not expect much of its members and most participate at a minimal level; gaining minimal benefits from those few others who are willing to invest in the experience (the absence of God in this discussion is a reflection that their theory is secular). Within that denomination there will always be some small subset that seek a deeper experience and are willing to invest their energies to get it. To the extent to which that subset is also willing to come into conflict with their denomination and community, they will break away and form a new sect. Because that sect is initially populated by individuals who are all very committed to each other and to their new movement, the quality of the religious experience will be high and will attract others who also seek a deeper experience. Furthermore, as a break-away group with new ideas and an expectation of high commitment, the new sect will exist in tension with the community and that tension will serve as a barrier to others wishing to join.

However, because of the high quality of the experience, people will join, and not all of them will be as committed as the founders. Stark and Finke propose that the quality of the religious experience provided by a religious institution is proportion to the aggregate commitment of the members (whether because the members are producing the experience, or "god" is rewarding their commitment is not stipulated). This means that less committed people can join and gain nearly the same benefit as the more committed ones. The result is that as people join the sect, the commitment and religious experience tend to become gradually diluted by religious "freeloaders". Initially, the numbers of freeloaders will be small because the degree of tensions with the community tends to keep less committed people away; but as the community gets used to the new group and as it grows and therefore seems less unusual, the numbers of less committed people joining the group increases. This process continues, usually accelerating after the original founders die. As the freeloaders increase as a percent of the sect, they start to gain influence, and implicitly move the group in the direction of expecting less commitment. This further reduces the tension with the community (people don't have to be as "different"), which encourages even less committed people to join. This cycle continues until the sect becomes a new "mainstream" denomination, accepted by the community, not expecting much from its members, thus providing the launching pad for the next sect.

In Churching of America, Stark and Finke follow several religious movements in American history from when they were the "hot new thing" in rebellion against staid orthodoxy through to when they became the staid orthodoxy against which the next group rebelled. There is a whole lot of detail and analysis I am leaving out here for the sake of brevity. If this at all interests you, I would strongly recommend reading the book, or even reading "Acts of Faith" to get the whole story. "Acts of Faith", for instance, shows why women applying to be Catholic nuns dropped rapidly instead of increasing after Vatican II made it easier to be a nun (but remained high in those countries where Vatican II was ignored).

Now to be clear, this is NOT what I believe is the fundamental problem with the church in America. I think Stark and Finke's model shows what happens to religions under the influence of human nature in the absence of God. The real problem in America is what caused the Christian Church to become primarily a human institution governed by human nature and thus subject to this cycle.

Posted by Steven at 05:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

January 26, 2006

Thoughts : Green Libertarian

I am a software architect. One side effect of the mindset that has aided me in that career is that I tend to look at everything around me as a source of algorithms that I might use on the computer. For instance, evolution by selection (natural, intelligent, or otherwise) has proven to be a very powerful technique for solving certain kinds of computer problems. The application of evolution to software development is known as using "genetic algorithms" and has been used to design bridges and predict the stock market. Likewise, free market economies have been shown to be an efficient and powerful means to make many kinds of decisions, some completely unrelated to buying and selling goods. For instance, the Iowa Electronic Markets (IEM) has done a better job at predicting election outcomes than any polling organization by operating a "stock exchange" in which people invest in "candidate futures".

The catch however is to use evolution or a free market to solve a specific problem, you need to carefully construct the situation to essentially "ask the right question" of the technique. There is an infamous example when computer scientists were first dabbling with genetic algorithms where they thought they had managed to "breed" a very fast sorting algorithm. The problem was that the test cases they had used to determine the "fitness" of the algorithms (as in "survival of the fittest") where not as random as they thought, and rather than breeding a sorting algorithm, they only managed to breed an algorithm that knew how to re-order their specific test cases.

Which, believe it or not, leads me to my political philosophy.

I am what I like to think of as a "Green Libertarian". To start with, I believe that there are relatively few things which governments can do for people that they can not do better for themselves. One reason I believe that is that I also believe that a free market is a very efficient tool for finding sets of solutions that meet people's needs. It allows many possible solutions to be tried and rewards those solutions that are successful.

As a case in point I believe in school choice. I believe having a single government subsidized solution (as is the case in most communities in the USA) interferes with the proper working of the free market and results in a substandard education for all but those who are wealthy enough to afford other opportunities. I do appreciate the complexities of alternative solutions and would be willing to live with certain safeguards; but fundamentally, making sure everyone has viable (affordable) choices on where to send their children to school is in my opinion the best way to ensure a quality education for everyone because this is exactly the kind of problem free markets are good at solving. Even a very limited scheme – for instance saying: to get government money you can't select students based on ability (unfair because government schools have to accept everyone), you can't require additional money from the parents if you accept government money (again unfair), and students who are being funded by the government can't be required to attend religious instruction (avoids constitutional issues that exist in some people's minds) – even a limited scheme like that would almost certainly provide superior solutions.

So far, my position would seem to be well aligned with the Libertarian Party. As a starting point, I think the Libertarian Party has some very good ideas. Where I diverge from them is that I see many more problems than they for which the free market is not a good solution. Fundamentally, a free market works as long as all those affected by a decision are able to participate in that market. To the extent to which effected people have no voice in the market, the solution will be biased towards those who have a voice, and thus will be suboptimal.

The clearest example of this to me is the Libertarian Party's positions on ecology. While the Libertarian Party's stance has mellowed over the years (I remember the original Libertarian Manifesto making very clear that a person's right to do whatever they want with their own property included the right to dump toxic waste there if they chose), it remains the case that the Libertarian Party's views on ecology are biased towards allowing current free markets resolve these issue. I believe such solutions are fundamentally flawed because the nature of ecological issues makes it such that the majority of people who will be affected by these decisions are not yet born, and so no current free market will ever be able to find optimal and efficient solutions. I have seen proposals that try to artificially impose "future costs" into the market; but their very artificiality means that you are no longer gaining the benefits of the free market.

Ecology is not the only case where I think the Libertarian Party is not critical enough of what problems a free market can solve; but it is the most obvious. The bottom line to me is that you really need to understand why free markets work and then evaluate each kind of decision to determine if they can be trusted to the market or some other solution is required. As a result, my own political philosophy tends to be a kind of amalgam of Libertarian politics and those espoused by the Green Party. Hence, I am a Green Libertarian. This is already a super-sized post, so I think I'll stop here.

Posted by Steven at 06:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

January 28, 2006

Faith : Bye-and-bye vs. Here-and-now

I'll admit, when I made my conscious decision to be a Christian at the age of 10, the whole heaven/hell thing was foremost in my mind. I came to believe that it was possible that Jesus could return very soon, and I wanted to be sure I was ready for whatever would come after that. This was reinforced by the doctrines of that first church I was a part of, who believes that the main reason God didn't just zap everyone to heaven as soon as they received Jesus as Lord and Savior was so that we could help other people make the same decision.

Stories were told of foolish people who decided to wait to receive Jesus until their deathbed (allowing them to live a fun life and still get to heaven), only to have their life snuffed out suddenly with no opportunity for last-minute repentance. The moral of the story was always that you never know when you might die, so you had better get right with God now. The question of whether this would be a good plan if somehow you did know when you would die was never raised.

I bring all this up to comment on how much my perception of Christianity has changed since then. Readers of this blog may note that I have never really talked about the question of "salvation". It came up in one of my allegories; but it wasn't a point I dwelled on. I noticed my lack of comment on this crucial aspect of Christianity and that got me thinking, and thinking now has me blogging.

The bottom line is that I am getting so much out of being a Christian in this life, what happens after isn't a big factor any more. It may have been the hook to get me in the door, but having now developed a relationship with God; I'd want this regardless of what comes after. To me, being with God, allowing him to work in my life to transform me, drawing on his wisdom and knowledge as I face the world, experiencing his love and comfort; all of that is such a rewarding experience that I wouldn't want to miss out on a day of it for any reason. I look back at the story of the guy wanting to wait for his deathbed to become Christian and realize his foolishness was not that he didn't know when he would die; but that he would miss out on years of walking with God.

I think about that first church and see now that the subtext of their message was "Being a Christian stinks; but it beats going to hell." What a shallow form of Christianity that is! What an insult to God and his value as a companion, mentor, friend! Is it any wonder that people are surprised to meet intelligent, successful Christians if that is the message the world is getting?

Now to be clear, I do not claim the Christian life is a bed of roses. The process of transformation is difficult, even painful at times. There have been issues in my life that I have been very resistant to change; and the process of reaching a place where I was finally willing to yield was unpleasant. However, there has yet to be such a situation where years later I didn't look back and think "While it was rough then, it sure saved me from far more trouble later".

Posted by Steven at 06:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

January 31, 2006

Faith : What's Wrong in The Church

So I have been struggling the last few days to write up a bit on "what's wrong with the Church in America" based on issues of balance. What I have come to realize in the process of thinking this through is that I was completely off base. Yes, there are serious issues where many groups focus on one aspect of the gospel and de-emphasize others, and I do hope to eventually post my thinking on that subject; but that is just a symptom, not the root cause. The real root cause, I have now come to believe, is that too many American just want to use God and not actually have a relationship with Him.

A classic character (who too often represents reality) is the husband who takes his wife for granted. He wants her to cook, clean, take care of the kids, and provide other more intimate services; but otherwise stay out of his life. She's there to provide what he needs; but he has no responsibilities to her. Or there's the successful man with his "trophy wife" whose purpose is, by her clear desirability, to show how desirable he must be. Or there's the man who marries a woman to replace his mother – someone to tell him he's OK after a hard day at work; someone who will tell him she loves him no matter what he has done or how he has failed.

Most people tend to recognize that there is something wrong with such marriages – that they are not real, intimate relationships; but rather just a context where the husband is using his wife to get his own physical or emotional needs met without any real connection. I claim most people who attend church in America (and perhaps elsewhere) are treating God in much the same way. They have some need that they want God to meet; but actually getting to know God – having an actual personal relationship with Him – that's asking too much. They'll do the minimum they think is needed to "keep God happy" – going to church, etc. – but that is the equivalent of buying the wife flowers on her birthday while ignoring her the rest of the year.

There are people who look to God for salvation; but want to live their lives however they want and want God to "stay in his place" (on Sunday morning). This is much like the man who looks to his wife as only a domestic servant – responsible for cooking and cleaning but staying out of his way otherwise. There people who want to associate with God to make them themselves look good, providing a means to claim moral superiority over all those "sinners" out in the world. They treat God like He was a trophy wife. There are those who go to church to hear how God loves them no matter what they do; but block out (or avoid in their choice of church) any message that actually challenges them to change or implies that they have some responsibility. They want a God who will mother them and tell them "it's going to be all right"

Something I noted after I started writing this is that in all of these false roles, God is being put into the role of the wife, while the "Christian" takes on the role of husband. Now the Bible is full of examples where the relationship between God and His people (whether the Jews or the Church) is compared to a marriage; but in all of the biblical cases God takes on the role of the husband and His people take the wifely role. Perhaps that's the core of the problem. Americans, believing that they are masters of their own fates and captains of their own souls are looking for a feminized, submissive god who will meet their needs (whatever those varied needs may be) and otherwise "stay in his (her?) place".

A real marriage is a deep, personal relationship between people who may (or may not) have different skills and roles; but who are regardless absolutely committed to each other emotionally and physically – who are fully invested in each other at every level of their being. Not concerned with just "what minimum do I need to do to keep my mate happy", they value their mate's happiness to such an extent that it becomes their own. That, I believe, is what God is looking for when He refers to the Church as "the Bride of Christ". God loves us deeply enough that he incarnated himself as a frail human being and then, on the cross, took within that form all the pain and suffering that every human being in history disserved to experience because of their failures. He did that so that he could have a deep, intimate relationship with us without the contamination of sin getting in the way. God is absolutely committed in his desire to have a personal, individual, intimate relationship with each of us. He is looking for those of us who seek that same relationship in return. That's real Christianity. That's what missing in the Church in America. Until the church stops asking "what's in it for me?" and instead starts asking "how do I get to know God personally", things are unlikely to change.

Posted by Steven at 10:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Faith : God: Thing or Person?

Two posts in a day! (see below for the other).

I just kept thinking about my previous post and ended up at this simple question: do most people who "believe in God" in America (whatever their faith may be), think of God as a thing or as a person? I'm not asking what they believe is doctrinally true; but on a day to say basis, how do they actually think of God?

Do they view God as a distant abstract entity – a "moral principle", a "divine force" a "first cause"; or do they view God as a person with feelings and desires, thoughts and emotions? Has our rational perspective on the universe pushed God into such a small corner of our worldview that we can only conceive Him as either being so distant that the idea of relationship with God is impractical, or so abstract that having a relationship with God would be like having a relationship with "Truth" or "Beauty" – impersonal at best.

Just a question; but I think a very telling one.

Posted by Steven at 01:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (7)