Truth

Height Privilege is Overrated

Standard

There’s no denying the advantages of being tall. 

Tall people are able to reach higher to get something off the top shelf and can see over a crowd.  It is a competitive advantage in many sports where factors like wing span or vertical leap can potentially earn millions and worldwide popularity.

It is a distinct social advantage to be tall.  Height seems to increase a candidates chances for winning elections, statistics show that taller men fare better in wage earning and in attracting female attention.  It is historical too, tall men seem to have been admired since at least the time of king Saul:

“Kish had a son named Saul, as handsome a young man as could be found anywhere in Israel, and he was a head taller than anyone else.” (1 Samuel 9:2)

Height is a factor in how people judge qualifications and character.  Short men who gain power are besmirched with the ‘Napoleon complex’ label to describe them.  I can’t imagine a tall man being called a weasel or rodent.  Furthermore, why is person lacking character called a “low life” or an insult to “belittle” a person?

This is obviously systemic discrimination and an insidious prejudice that seeps into the very way we construct language, right?

According to a Slate article, “Short Changed,” the proof is in the numbers:

“Economists have known for a long time that it pays to be tall. Multiple studies have found that an extra inch of height can be worth an extra $1,000 a year or so in wages, after controlling for education and experience. If you’re 6 feet tall, you probably earn about $6,000 more than the equally qualified 5-foot-6-inch shrimp down the hall.”

Armed with this knowledge, one could peg many things lacking in their life to their not being tall, they could claim their leadership skills have been overlooked because they were shorter than another candidate or claim their ambitions would be cast in a more favorable light if they had been accompanied by a 6′-2″ commanding presence.  A single guy of shorter stature could accuse women of being superficial and small-minded for rejecting him and could possibly be right.

But this also gives a lame excuse for lack of effort and honesty…

Maybe a guy is short and a jerk?

Or he’s not actually qualified despite his oversized ego?

Statistics tell us a story and they probably do indication some slight injustice towards short men.  But some damage could be self-inflicted as well.  When a person assumes they are handicapped or victims of discrimination they can react in a way that damages their own reputation and the conditions they create for themselves cause their own disadvantage.  If taller men have a psychological edge, then shorter men may be more prone to inferiority complex and a lack of confidence that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Life isn’t fair and there is no simple solutions to correcting these types of subtle injustices.  Measures taken to fix privileges of height based in overall statistics would likely create only another level of injustice if other disadvantages were not also considered.  How can we decide the benefits of beauty so that ugly people are properly compensated or determine what was a product of simple lack of trying?  Should we punish those naturally confident to make life fairer for those of timid disposition?  It is impossible to right every wrong.  It is hard to find who owes who when all things are taken into account.

image

Nick Vujicic and Kanae Miyahara

My advise is to use disadvantages (real or perceived) as motivation rather than as an excuse to fail.  Nick Vujicic, pictured above with his wife, was not only born short, but he also has no legs and arms, but that didn’t doom him to a life of despair. 

Some of us have likely been discriminated against more than others on the basis of our height, age, gender, weight, ethnicity, race or beauty, but it should never be our excuse to hide behind.  We all have unique challenges, but these challenges we face can prove our strength of character and overcoming these giants will be to our credit.

It is interesting that the man who was picked to lead after king Saul (who had turned out to be an irresponsible and jealous man) was not picked for his unusual height or beauty:

“But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.”  (1 Samuel 16:7)

David, the king who followed Saul’s reign, despite flaws, had courage and made no excuses.  David’s claim to fame was slaying the giant Goliath who had taunted Saul and his army to a contest that nobody including the tall king was willing to take on.  What David lacked compared to Saul in stature or notable appearance he made up for with faith and a good heart.

Short or tall it is better to be a David (or married to one) than a Saul.  Heart trumps height even if nobody but God notices.  So make no excuses and take on the challenges before you without fear or doubt.

The problem of knowing…

Standard

Knowledge is power or that is what I am told.  But how does our knowing make us more capable and is that capability to know always from our own betterment?

The answer is, no, not always, and our knowledge could very well be less for our own betterment than we know.  The same knowledge of the human body used by a doctor to save life can also by others to take it.  Knowledge of how to start a fire gives one the ability to cook and create glass or steel, and yet it is also a tool of an arsonist.  If knowledge is power it can be a destructive power.  Knowledge can be power to do evil.

Increased knowledge does not equate to moral progress…

“Of all the problems which will have to be faced in the future, in my opinion, the most difficult will be those concerning the treatment of inferior races of mankind” (Leonard Darwin)

Knowledge can also be deceiving and dangerous when it is incomplete, over-interpreted or not properly contextualized.  Eugenicists, like Darwin in the quote above, claimed confidently that their knowledge of science gave them the ability to decide what races of men and women should be allowed to reproduce.  People too easily use knowledge that validates their own presuppositions to overreach and sometimes with deadly consequences.

The confident and exuberant knowledge based claims of one generation become the warnings to the next.  Things argued as logical, reasonable, fact based and morally responsible by one generation will sometimes be regarded as the atrocities of the next.  Eugenics in America has become a prime example.  Very intelligent and knowledgeable men (like Nikola Tesla) argued for sterilization of races they deemed inferior.  But, the results of these brilliant forward thinking men of yesteryear, we now as a society pay a price for today.

“Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.”  (Proverbs 16:18)

One would think our knowledge of historical blunders would act to restrain our enthusiasm for allowing our knowledge today to delude us.  But increased knowledge does not equate to increased wisdom or humility.  Knowledge we possess can be a source of dangerous pride.  Pride that can blind us to the limits of our own knowledge and ability to reason correctly from the knowledge we possess.  Knowing what we do not know, being humble with what we think we know and listening to those who know differently from us can save us from our limited knowledge being our own destruction.

Known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns…

“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.” (Donald Rumsfeld)

Every fool in history was a likely victim of their own knowledge.  History is replete with examples of well-intended and intelligent men who misjudged on the basis of the knowledge they had.  I do not take Neville Chamberlain for an idiot because of his infamous “peace for our time” utterance after his meeting with Hitler gave hope of avoiding war.  In retrospect, with the knowledge available even then, one could have concluded very differently than Chamberlain and Hitler’s rise may have been thwarted saving countless lives.

Many terrible mistakes might have been avoided if people would have arrived at different conclusions using the greater available evidence or even the same knowledge they had making a bad judgment. Confidence in our ability to discern from our knowledge is good.  However, if our confidence is an insulation to keep us from hearing contrary opinions, if it is used to demean those who disagree and their perspectives, we are on a very dangerous road.  It is with more knowledge we can realize the conclusions we reached based in prior knowledge were overconfident, arrogant and wrong.

“Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed.”  (Proverbs 15:22)

More knowledge is not a savior of humanity.  Educated and knowledgeable people are some of the most dangerous people if they are unrestrained by moral conscience or humility.  There is a story of a new king (1 Kings 12) who decided to disregard the council of older advisors, choose to follow the advice of more agreeable peers and sowed the seeds of his own destruction.  We too risk the same when we seek the council of those who confirm our own biases and disregard the perspectives of those outside our own peer group or culture.

“…knowledge puffs up while love builds up. Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know.” (1 Corinthians 8:1b-2)

Based in their knowledge people too often pick advisors who are no different from them.  It is a form of self-love.  From young people who turn to age-group peers, to fundamentalists (religious, scientific or otherwise) who vehemently defend their own various established dogmas and quickly dismiss any interpretation counter to their own, we need to be wary of our own potential knowledgeable ignorance.  Having an abundance of fact, logic and reason does not equate to having good discernment.  Knowing you could be wrong and not know what you believe you know could save you (or those you influence) plenty of sorrow and regret.

The advantage of not knowing and loving freely…

I believe we are often geared too much towards our own knowledge and not enough towards love and humility.  If we were more mindful of the limits to our own knowledge or more aware of the lessons of history (and able to apply them to ourselves) we would probably not be as quick to trust our own discernment.  Knowledge can lead to arrogance, but the right kind of knowledge can lead to our being humbled and able to submit to the way of love that defies common understanding.

“For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.”  (1 Corinthians 2:2)

Unpackaged: Knowing only Jesus Christ is to know only the Spirit of God and power of love, and to know only that could do more good for the world than a supercomputer of facts.  Love has more power than the combined intelligence of those who unlocked the secrets of the atom and the awe-ful results of their knowledge.

The world would be better with more who had the faith (and courage) of a young woman, Maryann Kauffman, who lost her husband to a senseless act of violence and choose knowing only Jesus or forgiveness rather than bitterness.  I can know without knowing that her pain is as real as anyone else’s, but evidently her love is bigger.

May we resolve to know goodness more completely and I know we will be better for it. There is no loss in willing self-sacrificial love…

I read it on the internet, so it must be true…

Standard

There was a story circulating a few years ago claiming that a mountain lion was hit by a truck in Pennsylvania and urging people to spread the news.  The claim was accompanied by a picture of a man with a big dead cat and also included mention of Game Commission denial.

This story was red meat for those of my friends who were already suspicious of the state officials (who maintained there was lack of credible evidence that mountain lions roamed the state forests) and was confirming proof to them.  The story included a photographic evidence, did it not?  How could it not be credible and proof of a cover-up, right?

As it turns out the same photo has been used in many stories to make different claims.  It is a real photo.  However, according to more credible sources, the photo was taken in Arizona and not in Pennsylvania or the many other places where internet stories claimed the animal was hit.  The story that the mountain lion was hit in Pennsylvania is apparently a lie.

So, why would a person be so suspicious and skeptical of one source (like the PA Game Commission) and yet be so gullible as to fall for an internet hoax from a random source?  Why trust a complete stranger who we have no way of knowing if the information they give is trustworthy or true while disbelieving sources that are at least somewhat accountable and knowable?

It comes back to confirmation bias or the idea that people will be more accepting of evidence that confirms their existing beliefs or biases.  Those who accepted the story as true already believed the truth was being hidden by the government and thus didn’t feel need to check the credibility of the claim.  They pick up and run with whatever tickled their existing partisan fancy.

I understand confirmation bias.  But it is difficult for me to understand why people are so easily duped by internet hoaxes and conspiracy theories from spurious sources.  It is especially difficult for me to understand how people can be so cynical of mainstream sources and then simultaneously accepting of a story posted by some random person on the internet.  It should be opposite, we should be more skeptical of a little known source and less mistrusting of those more known.

Time and time again I see stories posted by friends on social media, I do my due diligence to research the claim and oftentimes find it is a myth or hoax.  In an age of Photoshop pictures can be easily doctored.  Credentials can be fabricated to make an appeal to authority and I am instantly skeptical when someone uses that type of appeal rather than concrete evidence and sound logic.

Good cases aren’t bolstered by bad arguments.  True stories do not need fake photos or deceptive use of facts.  By using (or linking) unreliable information as proof of an idea a person is actually hurting their chances of convincing intelligent people who disagree and are potentially making a mockery of themselves.

Lies and fraudulent claims used to promote a moral argument are especially inexcusable.  I can understand why corrupt politicians and calculated propagandists distort evidence trying to gain power from the ignorance of their constituency.  I can also understand why immoral people fabricate stories and try to deceive for entertainment or whatever reason.  But what I cannot accept is false information used by those who are claiming the moral high ground.  It is hypothetical at worse and dangerous ignorance as best.

“These are the things you are to teach and insist on. If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, they are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.”  (1 Timothy 6:2b-5)

A moral person should take responsibility for the stories they spread.  An untrue claim can do real harm.  Gossip, slander and evil surmises may help line the pockets of those trying to exploit the ignorance of others for their own gain.  But these things do do not help the cause of truth.  As people of faith and love we have no excuse to be casual with our sources.  Agreement in principle is not a reason to trust a source or be negligent of due diligence.

“Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives’ tales; rather, train yourself to be godly. For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come. This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance. That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.”  (1 Timothy 4:7-10)

Contrary to what some may think, being a person of faith does not automatically lead to better discernment.  We must actual train ourselves to be godly and discerning.  What this means practically is not just accepting internet stories as fact even if we like what they are saying.  We have a moral responsibility to be critical thinkers who can see past our own potential prejudices, misconceptions or biases.  It requires first being humble enough to admit what we want to think is true isn’t always true.

“Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.”  (Philippians 4:8)

If you do not know if a story is true or not, rather than risk promulgation of half-truth or lies, do not share it.  There is plenty that is good or honorable that we can share without risking the credibility of ourselves or hurting that which we claim to love in the process.

What We Believe, Does It Matter?

Standard

What we believe matters.  What we believe changes our reality.  Belief matters because it changes the way we act.  If a person believes something they will live in a way that reflects the reality of their mind and work to create that reality.

If I believe I am disadvantaged, discriminated against or am cut off from a path to success, then I have also excused myself from making a full effort to overcome.  However, if I believe success is achieved by meeting challenges and adversity without making any excuses, then my trying may overcome the obstacles.  If I believe success comes from hard work and perseverance I will actively pursue it rather than wait around for my fate to be determined by my circumstances.

In practical or pragmatic terms it is better to believe there is hope.  Hopeless people go through the motions of life, they hold back because of their cynical attitudes and when their lack of effort results in failure they take it as proof of determinism.  When we believe things cannot be changed we are actually promoting that end.  There is truth to the idea of a self-fulfilling prophecy.  We can build positive or negative feedback loops depending on what we believe and how what we believe changes the way we act or react.

Some saw only giants…

What we believe changes how we view the evidence.  In the Bible there are multiple accounts where perspective had practical consequences.  There is the story of twelve Israelite men sent to spy on Canaan (Numbers 13) who saw the same evidence differently.  Ten of the twelve saw only impossible odds, plead their reasonable case against the promise, convinced the multitude to fear and doomed themselves to wandering.  However, two of the twelve saw victory over the obstacles and they did eventually see the promise fulfilled for them.  Unfortunately, because of the unbelief of others, even their fulfillment was delayed.

With a negative perspective could very well be robbing ourselves of a chance for success.  But, not only that, we may be robbing others as well because we aren’t giving our full potential.  When we take a fatalistic ‘it is what it is’ attitude towards something what we are actually doing is saying that we are unwilling to take steps to change what ‘is’ and make it better.  It is not an acceptance of reality, no, it is an excuse to be mediocre.  It is justification of our being indifferent rather than taking steps in faith to change circumstances for ourselves or others.

Cynicism and skepticism seem to be the ‘gods’ of our time.  And, while I am an advocate for critical thinking, I desire to use it as a means to strengthen humanity and not to destroy faith in the better.  I am not arguing in favor of foolhardiness.  I do not believe faith in the future is an excuse to be ignorant or unaware.  But, what I am saying is that we need to shoot for the impossible or we won’t even live the best of the possible.  It is the faithful who should be leading the way towards the ideal and without compromise or fear.

Unbelieving Christians…

There are many who claim to believe that the fantastic claims of the Bible are true and yet few who seem to accept the full implications of what doth dwell therein.  It is subtle, it often hides under cloak of theology or spiritual language, but underlying this ‘appearance of godliness’ (2 Timothy 3:5) is a heart of unbelief and doubt.  I can tolerate defeatism outside the church, but within the community of faith defeatism is inexcusable, it is spiritually dangerous ground and robs of us of our full potential as people of faith.  There are three areas where I see Christians accepting defeat and in the process defrauding themselves and the world.

“Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48)

The Bible tells us all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) and that to set the stage for our understanding a need for saving grace.  Yet that is NOT an excuse to continue in sin. (Romans 6:1) The mentality that will lead to spiritual victory is that which seeks to overcome sin rather than wallow in excuses for sin.  I can hear the chorus of “yeah, buts” in protest.  I know all the excuses because I have made them.  To those making excuses by citing religious tradition and theological exemption, read Mark 7:13.

Ironically, it is sometimes the same who attempt to apply the letter of their own law or tradition, who justify their own personal and group shortcomings.  They strain on gnats and swallow camels (Matthew 23) sowing the seeds of their own failure.  All have sinned.  Sin is falling short of perfect love.  We need grace for our own failings and need to show grace as those shown grace.  However we aim for perfection because to aim for less we are actually sabotaging our full potential and will likely feel need to justify ourselves by pointing out the failures of our neighbors.

To those I have judged for their sins while not dealing completely with my own, I apologize and offer my repentance.

“This, then, is how you should pray: “‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name,     your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven…” (Matthew 6:9)

This is the prototypical prayer Jesus offered his followers.  It is commonly referred to as the “Lord’s prayer” and recited religiously.  But, if one were to consider the implications, it should change our expectations and how we live.  There are two things we can assume, a) we could assume we are to pray this as mere wishful thinking, or b) we can take it literally and do our part to bring heaven to earth in faith.  It is an unfortunate feature of popular eschatology that seems to dampen the enthusiasm of some to make a positive contribution by a presumption that it will not make a difference what we do.

When we see the world with a rental car mentality we cease to take care of it as a gift from God.  Worse, too often this attitude is not just negligence towards the environment, but it also seeps into our attitude towards people and we become as Jonah sitting waiting (even hoping) for the judgment of the polluted and imperfect world.  To have that perspective is to extinguish our potential as a salt and light in the world (Matthew 5:13-16) and deprive our neighbors along with future generations of a better world.  We are essentially tying the hands of God (goodness) when we accept a corrupt world.  It is our job as people of faith to swim against the current and bring heaven to earth.

“Have faith in God,” Jesus answered. “Truly  I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them.  Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.”  (Mark 11:22-24)

The passage above, a refrain repeated in the Gospels. It identifies the real root of our low expectations and the root of our low expectations is a heart of faithlessness.  We do not see the full potential of God’s love for us because we do not believe, pray in belief and act in full faith.  This cynical faithless attitude is the same that prevented Jesus from doing works he was doing among others who had faith (Matthew 13:53-58, Luke 4:14-30, Mark 6:1:6) and it is a spirit still alive today in religious circles today.  It is a spiritual ignorance, it is an idea that boxes in God by our own understanding, and limits our full potential.

Beware of what you think you know lest you repeat the same mistakes of those who limited not only themselves but also those who were with them.  Faith is not fatalistic.  Faith is a mind set on success in all areas of life, having a heart that believes all things are possible and acting with a will to overcome impossibility.  It is an attitude without fear of giants, not deterred by walls or oceans and has hope in all people.  It is with this kind of faith that the promises of God are made real as experiences today rather than a mythology in the past or a delusion about the future.

The radical faith…

I say, instead of spreading unbelief or doubt, and instead of living in doom or despair, become open to the better possibility and act to make it a reality.  I’m not saying to be ignorant of suffering, nor that life is all sunshine and rainbows for those with radical faith.  No, if anything, with higher expectations comes a greater burden; a person who believes does not sit idle waiting for the future to come to them.  A person with faith is more active and vulnerable.  Still, those who try and stumble occasionally are better than those who spiritualize their defeatism and never act practically to bring what is better into reality.

“In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.   But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.” (James 2:17-18)

Believe and live life an abundance rather than be resigned to fear or failure.  Be wise, be aware and live in faith.

Go bring heaven to earth.

Make no excuses.

What Came First the Description Or the Reality?

Standard

I’ve had a friend recently characterize some people as “needy” or “clingy” and I had to wonder if those terms are used more often as a justification than as a fair description.

My question is the classic chicken-or-egg-came-first causality dilemma expressed in our socialization.  Individuals create societies, but societies most definitely influence individuals and splitting up responsibility is not as easy as simply picking one or the other.

Causality: Words versus reality?

Descriptions do matter.  Describing adjectives are subjective points of view rather than concrete realities and yet themselves do help to form reality.  Two people evaluating the same behavior can come to vastly different conclusions.  An alleged flirt could be described as friendly, being aggressive may be assertive, opinionated could be engaging, arrogant could be confident, pushy might be sincere and the list goes on.

Descriptions reflect our prejudices.  A negative description influences how others may interpret a person’s behavior and could harm them.  What we see as bad in another person’s behavior may actually say more about our own personality and weaknesses than theirs.  We could very well be blinded by our own perceptions of reality and be blinding others with our less than flattering words.

Good judgment requires good context.  If I were to say a person is “desperate for attention” there is a sort of pejorative sense assumed.  But, if that phrase was used in the context of serious physical injury with a need for immediate professional medical help, does that change the inflection?  For me, it changes my interpretation of the ‘desperate’ person’s character.

Humans have many needs, all are things necessary for a healthy life or perspective of reality, and some needs are more immediate or pressing than others.  There’s a way the most reasonable or composed person can be made to become like a wild animal in less than a minute and all it takes is to cut off their air supply.  A person chocking a chicken bone or drowning is likely desperate, they are definitely needy and they might even get a bit clingy too.

Giving a cold shoulder to a starving soul…

Picture another scenario, picture a banquet hall, many at the table enjoying the abundance, some proclaiming loudly how blessed and full they are.  But, on all sides around those partaking are many others who are shut off from the food and drink.  Those at the table chatter and smile oblivious to those behind them.  Those outside are fully aware, they patiently wait their turn as the pangs of thirst and hunger build.

Finally, after this goes on for days, and those at the table take no notice, one of the outsiders taps one of the friendlier in appearance feasters on the shoulder asking just for a slice of bread and sip of water.  Unfortunately, the person at the table, fat from gorging themselves, look back, they see the peaked looking figures behind them, they assume these outsiders must be sick with a deadly disease and, instead of offering sustenance, they are horrified.

What happens when a person has no access to food or drink?  They starve, they thirst and, if it continues long enough, even the most confident person will become increasingly desperate in their search for answers and they eventually fall into doubt or fear.  They will no longer enjoy the shouts of satisfaction of others and especially that of those who refuse to offer rescue, relief or help.  It is understandable if they got a bit pushy and increasingly desperate, right?

It is our job as people of faith to turn those who are outsiders into insiders:

“Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.”  (Colossians 4:5-6)

So, what should we do to be more loving?

Going back to needy or clingy, used as an assessment of human behavior, let me apply the feast scenario above to human need of companionship.  Like all people need air to breath and water to drink and food to eat, most people require a balanced diet of social interaction or inclusion to be happy and healthy.  A person shut off from necessary social sustenance will likely become increasingly desirous of affection or affirmation and with that their behavior may shift towards more assertiveness.

What could be hidden in our characterization of a person as being needy or desperate is a justification to mistreat them.  And, at very least, it is not helpful to tell a chocking person that “hey, you look desperate and needy.”  Without help offered, commentary on the obvious could sound more like a taunt than a useful observation.  At worse, it is stuffing a pejorative down their throat, giving them yet another reason to feel unvalued and isolated.

The needy and clingy characterization of someone is probably used unfairly in many cases and may be used as a cover for our own wrongful attitudes.  If their appreciation of our companionship and if their affection towards us were valued, we would call them “appreciative and affectionate” instead.  But, the reason we call them clingy or needy is that we (or those we are defending) are at some level wanting to excuse ourselves from responsibility for their human needs.

Needy and clingy are a negative spin on appreciative or affectionate. They could be used as a pejorative to describe a person who we don’t value and also are damaging words if used to help shape the opinions of others.  Our insensitive use of language can have consequences.  Labels affect how we see ourselves and also how we see others.  If we were to tell someone who made mistakes they are “stupid” or “idiotic” we may actually impact their confidence negatively to the degree they respect or others respect our opinion.

Wisely using words that build rather than harm…

People need affirming words to make them grow more than they need their behavior characterized negatively.  Even bad experiences can be redeemed if reframed as an opportunity to learn or grow. Likewise, a positive description can also be used to shape a person positively.  It is likely far more beneficial for a person already down on themselves to hear their hopes or desires given legitimacy and respect instead of derision.

“Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. […] Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.” (Ephesians 4:29, 32)

Describing a person negatively to others is rarely helpful.  To speak disparagingly about a person without giving them a chance to defend from the accusation is basically to murder their character.

However, when times demand we must be critical and there are ways to offer criticism that help and other ways that hurt.  The first I recommend, rather than discuss them with other friends, is to go directly to them treating them as a friend.  This is the idea Jesus taught for addressing ‘sin’ against us (Matthew 18:15) and provides a chance for the offending party to explain themselves.  That is the way of love.

There are many wounded, broken and hurting people in the world who are well aware of their own need.  These are people who need not be reminded again of their own deficiencies.  We do not know what they have had to overcome.  It is not our job to determine what another person does or does not deserve.  True love is not the only kind or accepting of those most like us, but is self-sacrificial and gracious to the undeserving.  That is the way of Jesus.

Do your words feed and nourish a better reality?

The Most Dangerous Book in Existence

Standard

Books are powerful and there is little doubt of that. Their words carry ideas far beyond those who wrote them. The power of books is widely recognized and that is why they are written; that is why books are removed as a potential threat. Books have undoubtedly had a huge influence on the course of history.

Books carry both good and bad messages. Books have popularized ideas that have led to hate and harm of people. If one were to list the most dangerous books in history there are many titles that might come to mind. Books such as Mein Kampf, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or The Communist Manifesto can be linked to political purges, religious persecutions and genocide. With each title one could discuss the human causalities related to each and try to rank them.

However, there is one book that perhaps is more dangerous (especially spiritually) than all of those titles combined and that is the book this blog is about. It is a book so powerful that it has been used to create sectarian division within the very group it was written to inform. Knowledge of this book has historically caused some religious experts to reject as a false teacher that others believe it was written about. It is a favorite source of ridicule of those skeptical of the truthfulness of the ideas it contains. This is a book that was used as a means to tempt Jesus. This one book is actually a combination of books that were compiled into the single book which is now called The Holy Bible.

The Bible is arguably one of the most influential books in all of human history. The Bible carries both great potential for good in the right hands and also a terrible power for evil used wrongly. It has inspired some to great acts of self-sacrificial love. It has been used by others as justification for violence. The power and potential of the Bible is in the hands of the interpreter.

Biblical reformation, the division in the church and the interpretation question

Biblical fundamentalism is branch of Christianity that has become popular since the Protestant Reformation. It is a belief system made possible with the invention of the printing press and widespread availability of Biblical texts to the general public. This wresting of control of the church from the institutional church and new emphasis on a written text was a significant development in church history; it seemed necessary at that time as a reaction to the abuses of the institution of church.

Unfortunately, as reactions often do, the resultant bibliocentrism has also created a great deal of other problems. The biggest of those problems is the all too obvious explosion of sectarian divisions within the church. The confusion is evidenced in the reality of the over 30,000 separate church denominations in existence today. The widespread availability of the Bible has clearly not created church unity. It has rather clearly created the opposite and a spirit of division.

Those of the Sola scriptura (by Scripture alone) view cannot agree on how Scripture should interpreted and let alone how it should be applied. Those who believe the Bible is sufficient alone put the interpretation of their own group and own personal interpretation above all others, each believing they are more correct than the others. Everyone doing what is right in their own eyes.

Bible based faith produces results that are wildly different from person to person. I know a guy who believes sincerely that the Bible teaches that Christians should basically be like ISIS and should either remove (kill) unbelievers entirely, subjugate them or enslave them and he has many proof texts to support his position. I know of many others who believe that the Bible teaches pacifism, endorses state socialism or forced wealth redistribution and they too can produce many supporting texts. I know some who based in their own understanding of the Bible believe Jesus was not God.

We could go through Scripture with a variety of people and get completely contradictory perspectives on what it actually says in many significant areas. On the basis of a few snippets of text, on a specific definition of a word or two and on the base assumptions they brought into their reading people have built whole doctrines. Different hermeneutic (or interpretive) approaches produce greatly different theologies that are contradictory in their extremes. The Bible is a great source of confusion.

People in the church cannot even agree on an appropriate translation of Scripture. Some will insist an earlier Old English translation of the Bible is more accurate than others and can give complex rationals in support of their position. Some even teach the one version they believe in is the only acceptable ‘inspired’ version. Varying degrees of literalism have led to many disputes within the church. Some believe the Bible teaches that the world is flat based in their dogmatic literalism. Others see more figurative speech, more allegories and metaphors.

Whole doctrines built off of words or phrases that aren’t clearly understood and yet are assumed to be understood in ignorance. The Bible, according to 2 Peter 3:15-16, describes concepts that are difficult to understand and words which can be misused in ignorance:

“And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.”

In the hands of “ignorant and unstable people” the Bible is potentially destructive. I believe we do not need to look far into history to find many examples of where this has been the case. If you do not know examples, then I will present the Münster Rebellion and the Bible-based predictions of Harold Camping as examples of Biblical application gone badly.

So, to my friends of Christian faith: Be humble, be diligent and do not ever believe your own knowledge of Scripture is without potential error. Faith cannot be in reading the Bible alone, there must be source greater than the Scripture that guides us spiritually and that is where the Spirit of God comes in.

Biblical literalism, the rejection of Jesus and the Elijah Question

Error is not a new problem with those attempting to interpret the written text of Scripture for themselves. Jesus himself was rejected on the basis of the Scriptural interpretation of those who knew the bulk of the book (we call Bible) better than most of us probably ever will or can hope to so many years removed from the culture and people it was written to. The Pharisees knew their Bibles well and also knew what it said about the Messiah.

Based in Malachi 4:5-6 there was an expectation that Elijah would return before the Messiah. According to Jesus the prophet John the Baptist was Elijah and he is recorded having said that in Matthew 11:13-14:

“For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come.”

However, the experts on Scripture, who rejected Jesus, were evidently looking for some more literal. Perhaps they were envisioning Elijah returning in a spectacular way and hoped for a kingdom of physical world importance, who knows? But the answer Jesus gave did not satisfy them.

It is interesting that even John the Baptist himself denied being Elijah when questioned in John 1:19-21:

“Now this was John’s testimony when the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, “I am not the Messiah.” They asked him, “Then who are you? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” He answered, “No.”

So, should we take John’s own words recorded in Scripture at face value? Should we believe the words of Jesus in Matthew 11:13-14 that contradict them? This is a serious problem for a literalist. This irreconcilability of message can easily explain the angst of those looking for a literal fulfillment of Malachi. Considering that John the Baptist himself would not claim to be Elijah probably caused some of the critics of Jesus to be even more secure in their own understanding of Scripture.

Luke 1:13-17, however, offers us this view of John the Baptist:

“But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John.  And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth, for he will be great before the Lord.  And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.  And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God, and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared.”

What Luke suggests is a literal return of Elijah, but not a literal physical return of Elijah and a spiritual fulfillment instead. John the Baptist was a return of Elijah, in that he embodied the “spirit and power” of the prophet, and yet he was not literally Elijah in physical form. To reconcile John 1:19-21 with Matthew 11:13-14, we can probably assume that John the Baptist was being humble in his answers, not even claiming to be a prophet, and that Jesus was exalting him as he should have been.

But, those who rejected John the Baptist as Elijah also rejected Jesus as Messiah and their knowledge of Scripture did not save them as they apparently believed it would. In John 5:30-40 this type of misplaced faith in Scripture is confronted by Jesus:

“I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me. If I alone bear witness about myself, my testimony is not true. There is another who bears witness about me, and I know that the testimony that he bears about me is true. You sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. Not that the testimony that I receive is from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved. He was a burning and shining lamp, and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. But the testimony that I have is greater than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I am doing, bear witness about me that the Father has sent me. And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen, and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent. You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. I do not receive glory from people. But I know that you do not have the love of God within you. I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him. How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”

For those who believe that the Scripture is God’s own voice, I think they need to take heed of what is written above and understand what Jesus is trying to explain. The people Jesus spoke to were experts on Scripture, they were extremely knowledgeable of the books of the Bible they had and put faith in their knowledge of the text like many religious people do today.

Unfortunately, what their knowledge of the book could not give them is true faith that can only come from the Spirit of God. The passage above in some translations tells us that they “searched diligently” the Scripture and yet before that tells us they have never heard from God or had “his word” in them. This passage flies directly in the face of those who think the written words of Scripture are themselves the word of God.

Biblical temptation of Jesus and the authority question

I’ve had Christian friends post on social media a message similar to this:

“When you carry the Bible, Satan gets a headache. When you open it, he collapses. When he sees you reading it, he faints. When he sees you living it, he flees. And just when you’re about to re-post this, he’ll try to discourage you. I JUST DEFEATED HIM! Copy and re-post if you can. Any takers?”

I do appreciate the enthusiasm. But it is perplexing to me that a person who has read the Bible themselves can believe that. The account of the temptation of Christ should put that idea to rest. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke all give an account of a conversation between Jesus and Satan that proves the exact opposite.

Satan is not afraid of Scripture. Satan cited Scripture and tried to use it to deceive Jesus. This is a version of that temptation in the Matthew 4:5-6:

“Then the devil took him to the holy city and set him on the pinnacle of the temple and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written, “‘He will command his angels concerning you,’ and “‘On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.’”

That is a quote of Psalm 91:11-12 used by the devil to tempt Jesus!

We don’t actually defeat our spiritual enemy through our enthusiasm for the Bible. Evil is not afraid of the Bible. Evil men have long used the Bible to accomplish their own selfish ends and have deceived many using the book. It is not a book that will save us from temptation. It is not a book that will give us the right answers or knowledge to defeat those who attempt to deceive us. What we need is the same authority dwelling in us that led Jesus into the desert to be tempted in the first place. What we need is the word of God in us or the Spirit of God and then (and only then) Scripture will become profitable in our hands. We need the authority that gave authority to those who were inspired to write the Scripture.

It is a bit paradoxical that I am trying to explain this using Scripture what I do not believe Scripture alone can explain. But, it is because I believe those who are Biblically religious and yet truly spiritually seeking will understand through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Many simply give credit to the wrong source unknowingly. They allow the true authority to speak to them and still do not understand they are actually receiving their understanding through that authority. So, to them, those who are listening to the voice of Jesus in their heart even unknowingly, Paul gives us a solution to understanding Scripture in 1 Corinthians 2:6-16:

“Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”—these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.”

To understand God in Scripture you must have the ‘mind of God’ in you first. It is not enough just to have knowledge of Scripture. Even the best Biblical doctrines and theology all will fall short if they are practiced by a person not also under subjugation to the Spirit of God. The words of the Bible are not magical in themselves, the words themselves are dead and the interpreter is the one who gives them life. And, to give the words of the Bible the right life requires that one have the “mind of Christ” while reading them and not any other.

The Spirit of God is the ultimate authority, the ultimate teacher and is the one we should trust when we claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ.

Stay tuned, this will likely be a multiple part series…

“You can’t handle the truth!”

Standard

One thing I have not fully learned yet is that people are not emotionally able to handle the whole truth.  My penchant for full-disclosure of hopes, fears or intentions can be discomfiting to those who ask “be completely honest” and are themselves unaccustomed to the same level of transparency.  Few people are honest with other people about their own agenda and whether that is good discretion or dishonesty is debatable.

People may ask for the truth, but that doesn’t mean they are emotionally mature enough or able to handle the complete truth.  None of us can.  We may want to know, but we could not function if we knew the truth of everything.  It would overwhelmed if we knew completely what people thought of us, all of what we would face in the future or understood fully the consequences of our poor choices.  Lack of disclosure is not always a way to protect others or of conscious good discretion, some people withhold truth as a way to manipulate and get their way.

People are also not honest with themselves.  It could be a lack of logical maturity, mental development and ignorance.  It could also be a matter of emotional self-preservation and a deliberate semiconscious choice of mind or completely willful ignorance.  Our minds sometimes are more aware than we are consciously aware.  For example, most of us know we are going to die, our mind always is aware of this at some level and yet we are able to live in the present moment without consideration of our own mortality.  Even those who are thrill seekers or get an emotional high from taking risks because of the possibility of death are a conflicted mix of natural (subconscious) fear and conscious hope for survival.

The title of this blog comes from a movie classic.  The movie “A Few Good Men” is about a military murder trial.  The title quote, “you can’t handle the truth,” comes from a heated exchange, a climatic defining moment in the story and you will need to watch the linked clip to understand my commentary.  You will see the Colonel on the stand trying to simultaneously defend his own innocence, his honor and code.  But there is a conflict in his logic that the prosecutor seeks to reveal in his questions, the conflicted claims of Colonel become very apparent and the resulting emotional outburst exposes a lie.

This is a study on cognitive dissonance. The Colonel had two sets of ethics, one for his protecting of the greater mission of saving life and another that applied to discipline within the the platoon and the one that didn’t protect Santiago’s life. The Colonel becomes emotional when his own conflicted views are presented back to him, he’s being defensive of an irreconcilable position and thus his only defense is an attempt to attack the character of his questioner. He got caught in his own self-deception.

This is more than just good drama, it is a window into how our minds work and illustrates the need for an outsider’s perspective on our own consistency applying our ethics.  Most people are trying to be good, most people think they are good because they are trying to be good and do not see the exceptions they make to their ethical principles. The Colonel yells, “you can’t handle the truth,” when in reality he could not handle the truth of his own failure to consistently live up to the good ethics he claimed to be protecting.

We aren’t on trial, we do need to show discretion when we speak to others and not reveal truth.  We also have blind spots where we aren’t consistently living up to the ethics we claim to hold and need to be open to those who challenge our own assumptions about ourselves and that requires humility.  Our taking offense, our becoming defensive or burying our heads in the sand can prevent growth and is a form of faithlessness that kills us spiritually. If you’re religious, tradition and theological dogma can prevent knowing truth. If you’re scientific, materialistic logic and known evidence based reasoning can be likewise blinding.

Truth is something that exists beyond our own full ability to comprehend. Without truth, with tradition, theology, material evidence and facts we can only build a rational. Rationals are not truth. Rationals can be disproven with more evidence or changed with a different perspective of the evidence. We cannot handle the truth if we are unable to realize the fallibility of our own opinions or if we are afraid to have faith and trust. We must realize that we are shaped by our various influences and that those influences themselves could also give us a corrupted version of reality.

So be humble, be open to correction and be able to repent when wrong…