It is December 24 as I write this and I find myself unavoidably contemplating the Christmas holiday and what it means. Christmas falls on Tuesday this year, so yesterday was Sunday. The sermon was in regard to the virgin birth of Christ and how many folks in our world have difficulty with the very idea of miracles of any kind, let alone something like the virgin birth of Christ. Newsweek, in their usual anti-faith fashion, had as their cover story last week an article by a skeptic that was focused on how there are other non-Biblical stories about Jesus' childhood that are commonly rejected and so the virgin birth would also be rejected if it hadn't been repeated so many times. The article concludes that holidays and religion are fine for those who want them, but don't take them too seriously. To that I would say, to borrow from Scrooge: Humbug!
This is not to say that the virgin birth is not an issue. It is part of the Christian faith, and the faith most definitely involves miracles. As C. S. Lewis has said, it is indeed one Grand Miracle. Christmas,to me, gives us a glimpse of that thing that Lewis calls the Grand Miracle: the Incarnation of Christ. However, it is not the Virgin Birth that is the heart of that Grand Miracle. The Virgin Birth strikes me as primarily the pathway or mechanism. The miracle itself is much bigger than that, and those who gag at the idea of the Virgin Birth seem to me to have missed the point. For the God of the universe, who is outside of nature and beyond nature to take on flesh and enter into His own creation to make Himself known, and not just to make Himself known but to experience death in order to conquer death, that is a far greater miracle than for a virgin to conceive. Lewis calls this taking on of flesh, the Incarnation, the Grand Miracle because all the other miracles of the Bible either point to this, demonstrate it, or result from it. It is the heart of the issue. God became man to rescue man and to make God known. That is the specifically Christian miracle. Other religions have the occasional healing or other miracle here and there, but nothing like this. And the resurrection of Christ, which is rightly a matter of great focus in Christianity, depends on this Grand Miracle.
The virgin birth is, of course, consistent with this matter of the Incarnation of Christ. That God would come into this world through a pure vessel and would be different from all other men is required. But that is not the main issue. The issue is whether there is in fact someone much greater than nature, someone who is outside of the natural world and yet enormously concerned about this world and its people. And the issue then is whether that Someone did in history step into this world to save us from ourselves.
This is much greater than simply a virgin birth. Coming by means of a virgin birth is a small matter in this context. To reject Christianity based on a virgin birth seems to me rather like rejecting the idea of freedom and democracy because you don't like the foreign policy of America. It misses the point. If you are to reject something it should at least be on the basis of its central teaching.
That entire story of the Incarnation is what Christmas celebrates. It is indeed a Grand Miracle. In the midst of the tragedies of the world around us it reminds me that Christ also experienced tragedy and overcame it as a foretaste of putting tragedy behind us for good. And so I get a small glimpse of the Grand Miracle each year at Christmas. I hope you do as well. Merry Christmas!
Monday, December 24, 2012
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Inflatable Christmas
They are all around us: Frosty the Snowman, Snoopy, Christmas trees, and a great many things that don't seem like they are about Christmas at all like rabbits and other animals. They spring up from the ground as darkness falls, as timers turn on fans that inflate them with air and turn on spotlights. Inflatable Christmas has arrived. The rabbi down the street now has an inflatable Hanukiah lamp in his yard, too, having been drawn in by it all.
I enjoy Christmas greatly. I enjoy Christmas trees and especially Christmas music. We generally attend at least 2 choir events for Christmas music and sometimes do more. I listen to the music in my car and with headphones in the gym. I enjoy many of the traditions of the season, including indoor decorations, but I do not like the 'inflatable Christmas'.
It was during my childhood that outdoor decorating with lights first became really popular. Businesses had done some of that prior to those years but private homes really did not get into that in a big way until the 1960's. Prior to then there would be doors with wreaths and light poles wrapped with greenery or ribbon and some mailboxes that were decorated but not much beyond that. Then the electric lights took hold! I at first found them novel and sometimes nice, but it began to get overdone and gaudy over time. Nowadays I refuse to put up outdoor lights as I find most of it neither attractive nor in the true spirit of the season. The inflatable things strike me as even less desirable.
I don't write this to complain about the neighbors, though. I am not offended or angry about their decorations. Perhaps it adds some joy to the season for them. I find it more sad than offensive; it just seems to miss the point for the most part. Very little of it draws your thoughts to the way the entire world was changed by the birth of a baby in a remote corner of the ancient world, and that is the only reason we celebrate Christmas in the first place.
Perhaps the enchantment with the inflatable Christmas yard decorations will pass as a fad. I hope so. It is not a huge issue but it does make me think that we have our focus in the wrong place.
I enjoy Christmas greatly. I enjoy Christmas trees and especially Christmas music. We generally attend at least 2 choir events for Christmas music and sometimes do more. I listen to the music in my car and with headphones in the gym. I enjoy many of the traditions of the season, including indoor decorations, but I do not like the 'inflatable Christmas'.
It was during my childhood that outdoor decorating with lights first became really popular. Businesses had done some of that prior to those years but private homes really did not get into that in a big way until the 1960's. Prior to then there would be doors with wreaths and light poles wrapped with greenery or ribbon and some mailboxes that were decorated but not much beyond that. Then the electric lights took hold! I at first found them novel and sometimes nice, but it began to get overdone and gaudy over time. Nowadays I refuse to put up outdoor lights as I find most of it neither attractive nor in the true spirit of the season. The inflatable things strike me as even less desirable.
I don't write this to complain about the neighbors, though. I am not offended or angry about their decorations. Perhaps it adds some joy to the season for them. I find it more sad than offensive; it just seems to miss the point for the most part. Very little of it draws your thoughts to the way the entire world was changed by the birth of a baby in a remote corner of the ancient world, and that is the only reason we celebrate Christmas in the first place.
Perhaps the enchantment with the inflatable Christmas yard decorations will pass as a fad. I hope so. It is not a huge issue but it does make me think that we have our focus in the wrong place.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Advent and Miracles
The December 2012 issue of First Things magazine includes an article by Stephen Barr about randomness and whether the existence of randomness is somehow an argument against creation of the universe by God. He makes a good argument that it is not an evidence against a creator God, and along the way there are some brief comments about miracles as events that 'contravene' the normal laws of nature. His article is a very good one in regard to the meaning of 'randomness', but I agree more with C.S. Lewis on the matter of miracles.
To 'contravene' a law of nature would mean to violate it or contradict it or oppose it. Lewis argues, though, that the miracles of the Bible do not so much violate nature as they add to it. For instance, there are 2 Old Testament instances of things that involve the sun, one where the shadow moves backwards as a sign to Hezekiah (Isaiah 38:8) and one where the day was extended for battle for Joshua (Joshua 10:13). Now to do this in contradiction to nature would involve something like reversing the earth's rotation (for the shadow) or slowing it down dramatically if not stopping it (for the extended day). Both of those would cause very severe consequences besides what is mentioned in the Bible, things like enormous tidal waves wreaking enormous destruction around the world. To prevent all of those effects would require a great many other miracles as well, miracles arguably greater than the one getting talked about in the text. There does not seem to be archaeological evidence of those 'side effects', though, and it would seem rather ham-handed of God to cause that kind of destruction in order to create a local event in Israel. But what if God added to nature instead of contradicting natural laws? What if He added light from another source to extend the day for Joshua? What if he added light from a different source and different geometry to change the shadow? Neither would involve global side effects and neither would contradict the natural course of the earth. The Bible says quite a bit about 'uncreated light' (as it is referred to in 'Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring' by J.S. Bach) emanating from God after all.
I don't know what mechanism God used for those miracles, but it does seem to me that there could be mechanisms available to God that do not necessarily go against His own laws in nature, the laws of nature that He created. One can make similar arguments for the miracles of turning water to wine, healing the sick, and so on. It could well be that our current world includes only some of the possible 'laws of nature', more of which could be normal in the world the come, the world we call 'heaven'. Miracles could be simply a glimpse of what will one day be 'normal'.
As we enter the Advent season I am reminded of the great miracle of Christ's birth, God taking on flesh to be born of a woman. God did not contradict the course of a normal pregnancy and normal birth; He did not create His Son out of the ocean waves like the pagan myths whose so-called miracles clearly contradict nature. He did not eliminate the need for a family for this Child to grow up in, a mom and a dad for guidance, a childhood to 'grow in favor with both God and man'. Instead He added a miraculous conception that did not contradict nature but added something new to it. He also added angels to announce it to those who had 'eyes to see and ears to hear', and magi to bring special provision for an otherwise poor family. 'Blessed are the poor'. That poor family, the family of Joseph and Mary, was blessed indeed! And blessed are we when we pause to contemplate these things in this miraculous season!
To 'contravene' a law of nature would mean to violate it or contradict it or oppose it. Lewis argues, though, that the miracles of the Bible do not so much violate nature as they add to it. For instance, there are 2 Old Testament instances of things that involve the sun, one where the shadow moves backwards as a sign to Hezekiah (Isaiah 38:8) and one where the day was extended for battle for Joshua (Joshua 10:13). Now to do this in contradiction to nature would involve something like reversing the earth's rotation (for the shadow) or slowing it down dramatically if not stopping it (for the extended day). Both of those would cause very severe consequences besides what is mentioned in the Bible, things like enormous tidal waves wreaking enormous destruction around the world. To prevent all of those effects would require a great many other miracles as well, miracles arguably greater than the one getting talked about in the text. There does not seem to be archaeological evidence of those 'side effects', though, and it would seem rather ham-handed of God to cause that kind of destruction in order to create a local event in Israel. But what if God added to nature instead of contradicting natural laws? What if He added light from another source to extend the day for Joshua? What if he added light from a different source and different geometry to change the shadow? Neither would involve global side effects and neither would contradict the natural course of the earth. The Bible says quite a bit about 'uncreated light' (as it is referred to in 'Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring' by J.S. Bach) emanating from God after all.
I don't know what mechanism God used for those miracles, but it does seem to me that there could be mechanisms available to God that do not necessarily go against His own laws in nature, the laws of nature that He created. One can make similar arguments for the miracles of turning water to wine, healing the sick, and so on. It could well be that our current world includes only some of the possible 'laws of nature', more of which could be normal in the world the come, the world we call 'heaven'. Miracles could be simply a glimpse of what will one day be 'normal'.
As we enter the Advent season I am reminded of the great miracle of Christ's birth, God taking on flesh to be born of a woman. God did not contradict the course of a normal pregnancy and normal birth; He did not create His Son out of the ocean waves like the pagan myths whose so-called miracles clearly contradict nature. He did not eliminate the need for a family for this Child to grow up in, a mom and a dad for guidance, a childhood to 'grow in favor with both God and man'. Instead He added a miraculous conception that did not contradict nature but added something new to it. He also added angels to announce it to those who had 'eyes to see and ears to hear', and magi to bring special provision for an otherwise poor family. 'Blessed are the poor'. That poor family, the family of Joseph and Mary, was blessed indeed! And blessed are we when we pause to contemplate these things in this miraculous season!
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Arrogance and Meritocracy
The fall 2012 issue of The City includes a review of the book Twilight of the Elites:America after Meritocracy. The reviewer, Walter Russell Mead of Bard College, finds himself not as far left as the author but agrees with the author that the idea of rule by 'the best and brightest' doesn't work out the way we hoped it would. Jefferson thought that this would be a 'natural aristocracy' and would be the democratic alternative to the European inherited-aristocracy approach. The book points out that this natural aristocracy may not be as democratic as he hoped.
One key reason for this, according to both the book and the reviewer, is arrogance. The reviewer summarizes this point from the book like this: 'The new elites don't feel guilty about their power; they didn't inherit it. They earned it. They are smarter than everybody else and they deserve to rule---and in their own minds at least, they also deserve the perks that power brings. Money, fame, access: bring it on.'
This kind of arrogance strikes me as part of what I find so loathsome in the political left. As the reviewer above points out, there have been mostly 2 groups in the left: the populists and the social technocrats. The populists have tended to be working class or agrarian 'little people' who felt a need to band together against the 'monopolists' like Rockefeller, Morgan, and Carnegie, while the technocrats tend to be upper middle class or upper class reformers (many of them in the university). It is the technocrats that end up as the 'meritocracy'. The 'little people' don't seem to recognize the disdain in which they are held by these technocrats. I have said before that some of my extended family who grew up during the Great Depression seem to still be voting for Roosevelt, and they are to my mind in this 'little people' populist stream who do not see how their values have been abandoned by the meritocracy. The arrogance of the success of these technocrats along with the power that has resulted from their success at being 'the best and brightest' demonstrates that, as always, 'power corrupts'.
The review does not mention this but there is a similar arrogance on the political right, by those who earned their success in business rather than in the government meritocracy. Just as political elites feel no guilt about their power, these feel no guilt about their wealth. They earned it, they worked hard for it, they didn't inherit it, so bring it on! This is a different kind of 'meritocracy', one based on hard work and entrepreneurship rather than education and political savvy. I also find this kind of 'self-made man' attitude disgusting, and I have seen it too often in business executives.
These 2 forms of arrogance, one on the political left and the other on the political right, seem to be two sides of the same coin. That coin is arrogance based on the idea that we are the prime mover in life. The left hurls accusations at the business world that they 'did not do it' (in Obama's recent words); the right hurls accusations at the government technocrats for ever more efforts to remove freedom of decisions from the legislatures or individuals and into bureaucracies. Both sides have a point, but both sides are guilty of similar sorts of arrogance. Both kinds of arrogance have been all too visible in the current presidential campaign. Both are a danger to anyone seeking to follow Christ.
'Blessed are the poor in spirit' says Matt. 5:3; 'I am gentle and humble in heart' says Jesus in Matt.11:29. Humility displaces arrogance. The reviewer above, in discussing the arrogance problem, points out that Thomas Aquinas noted that in the light of God's presence everything he had ever written was so much straw. Humility is based on recognizing the truth that God doesn't think any of us is all that smart, and the difference between the greatest and the least of us is quite small from His perspective. None of us has room for arrogance in God's presence, and that should enable us to see how very equal we are from His point of view. Humility is not based on some greatness of attitude on our part, but rather is based on the truth of how small we are compared to our Creator.
Were we to recognize how small our differences are from God's viewpoint it would be a great equalizer and a great unifier. Unity demands humility. Our nation is very divided currently. The sin of arrogance on both sides of the political divide strikes me as a big part of the problem.
One key reason for this, according to both the book and the reviewer, is arrogance. The reviewer summarizes this point from the book like this: 'The new elites don't feel guilty about their power; they didn't inherit it. They earned it. They are smarter than everybody else and they deserve to rule---and in their own minds at least, they also deserve the perks that power brings. Money, fame, access: bring it on.'
This kind of arrogance strikes me as part of what I find so loathsome in the political left. As the reviewer above points out, there have been mostly 2 groups in the left: the populists and the social technocrats. The populists have tended to be working class or agrarian 'little people' who felt a need to band together against the 'monopolists' like Rockefeller, Morgan, and Carnegie, while the technocrats tend to be upper middle class or upper class reformers (many of them in the university). It is the technocrats that end up as the 'meritocracy'. The 'little people' don't seem to recognize the disdain in which they are held by these technocrats. I have said before that some of my extended family who grew up during the Great Depression seem to still be voting for Roosevelt, and they are to my mind in this 'little people' populist stream who do not see how their values have been abandoned by the meritocracy. The arrogance of the success of these technocrats along with the power that has resulted from their success at being 'the best and brightest' demonstrates that, as always, 'power corrupts'.
The review does not mention this but there is a similar arrogance on the political right, by those who earned their success in business rather than in the government meritocracy. Just as political elites feel no guilt about their power, these feel no guilt about their wealth. They earned it, they worked hard for it, they didn't inherit it, so bring it on! This is a different kind of 'meritocracy', one based on hard work and entrepreneurship rather than education and political savvy. I also find this kind of 'self-made man' attitude disgusting, and I have seen it too often in business executives.
These 2 forms of arrogance, one on the political left and the other on the political right, seem to be two sides of the same coin. That coin is arrogance based on the idea that we are the prime mover in life. The left hurls accusations at the business world that they 'did not do it' (in Obama's recent words); the right hurls accusations at the government technocrats for ever more efforts to remove freedom of decisions from the legislatures or individuals and into bureaucracies. Both sides have a point, but both sides are guilty of similar sorts of arrogance. Both kinds of arrogance have been all too visible in the current presidential campaign. Both are a danger to anyone seeking to follow Christ.
'Blessed are the poor in spirit' says Matt. 5:3; 'I am gentle and humble in heart' says Jesus in Matt.11:29. Humility displaces arrogance. The reviewer above, in discussing the arrogance problem, points out that Thomas Aquinas noted that in the light of God's presence everything he had ever written was so much straw. Humility is based on recognizing the truth that God doesn't think any of us is all that smart, and the difference between the greatest and the least of us is quite small from His perspective. None of us has room for arrogance in God's presence, and that should enable us to see how very equal we are from His point of view. Humility is not based on some greatness of attitude on our part, but rather is based on the truth of how small we are compared to our Creator.
Were we to recognize how small our differences are from God's viewpoint it would be a great equalizer and a great unifier. Unity demands humility. Our nation is very divided currently. The sin of arrogance on both sides of the political divide strikes me as a big part of the problem.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
An Introvert's view of Evangelism
I wrote recently about introversion and extroversion and how much of the church, as well as our current modern culture, holds extroversion as an ideal. As a result much of the teaching on evangelism is tilted towards an extrovert's point of view and with an emphasis on using a salesman's approach. Much of what is taught about witnessing is structured around making a pitch, asking for the sale, and closing the sale. For instance, you talk through the 4 points of the Four Spiritual Laws or a similar outline, ask if they are ready to make a commitment, and if they are ready then you jointly do a prayer of commitment with the person and set up a follow-up time. This sometimes works out well for someone who has already been prepared by the Spirit, but other times it is not so appropriate and can be quite awkward at times. When it is done as a 'cold call' (again, the language of salesmanship) it is very often awkward and unfruitful and at times drives people away. So, I feel one has to be very sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit on this to back off when it should be backed off. I also think that introverts object to this kind of approach far more than extroverts.
Many folks who are focused on evangelism find this line of thought offensive themselves. They consider it a requirement to present the whole gospel as often as possible with little regard for whether they drive people away by their method. If the gospel is offensive, so be it, they reason; people took offense at Jesus, too. There is some validity to this in that we should be looking for those whom God has prepared to hear, and be ready to present Christ when that occasion arises. However, a great many who take this 'salesmanship' approach do not realize how many other Believers also find them to be offensive. They are more concerned about fulfilling their perceived obligation than in actually furthering the gospel message. Nor do they often realize how a sales approach by its very nature causes people to distrust them.
This is because to many folks, including me, any salesman is immediately suspect. The basic motivation of any salesman is to sell as much as he can and to maximize his earnings. In a case of a commissioned salesman, his goal is to maximize his commission. That makes his goal automatically in conflict with his customer to a large degree since his customer seeks to pay the lowest price he can for what he wants. You tend not to trust someone who is trying to empty your wallet! I think that introverts in particular distrust salesmen, especially if they are very pushy in trying to 'close the sale'.
While someones acceptance of the gospel is not a commission, it is nonetheless true that some try to earn 'rewards' in heaven by doing evangelism, and some gain personal satisfaction in 'winning' as if it were a game or competition. While these are not monetary payoffs, they can be emotional payoffs, and cause for the person to whom they witness to distrust them. Introverts in particular rarely will make a spur of the moment decision on something this important, requiring time to ponder and analyze it, as well as understand and learn about it. Being pushed by a salesman trying to close the sale is quite irritating to them as a result. At some point, after they have examined it, it is fine to ask for a decision, but not too quickly.
As a result, I think that a great many introverts find this kind of sales approach to the gospel to be demeaning to the gospel. In the first place many introverts will reject both the salesman and his message when pushed for a sale when they are not ready for that. Then there is also the fact that this sales approach often results in a partial understanding of the gospel that is really just 'cheap grace'. I think the sales approach to the gospel has strongly contributed to the idea that many folks seem to have that being a Christian consists simply of praying some simple prayer and then continuing to live your life the same way you always did.
This is not to say that never asking for a decision is OK. Most of us introverts still have to 'step up' to make the point that a personal decision is necessary. And it is still important to bring up the subject of the gospel and not just depend on our lives to be the witness. Explanation is still needed. But it does not make sense to me to essentially demand that somehow introverts must become extroverts in order to be 'good Christians'. There is more than one way to spread the gospel.
So, I think that true conversion requires a fundamental change of heart, and most introverts will not make that kind of decision in a sales-call situation. Most will distrust the salesman too much, and most will require time and thought to consider it fully. Extroverts may be more open to a sales approach just as they are also more open to being salesmen themselves than introverts are. However, even they need to be careful of avoiding a 'cheap grace' approach to the gospel.
Many folks who are focused on evangelism find this line of thought offensive themselves. They consider it a requirement to present the whole gospel as often as possible with little regard for whether they drive people away by their method. If the gospel is offensive, so be it, they reason; people took offense at Jesus, too. There is some validity to this in that we should be looking for those whom God has prepared to hear, and be ready to present Christ when that occasion arises. However, a great many who take this 'salesmanship' approach do not realize how many other Believers also find them to be offensive. They are more concerned about fulfilling their perceived obligation than in actually furthering the gospel message. Nor do they often realize how a sales approach by its very nature causes people to distrust them.
This is because to many folks, including me, any salesman is immediately suspect. The basic motivation of any salesman is to sell as much as he can and to maximize his earnings. In a case of a commissioned salesman, his goal is to maximize his commission. That makes his goal automatically in conflict with his customer to a large degree since his customer seeks to pay the lowest price he can for what he wants. You tend not to trust someone who is trying to empty your wallet! I think that introverts in particular distrust salesmen, especially if they are very pushy in trying to 'close the sale'.
While someones acceptance of the gospel is not a commission, it is nonetheless true that some try to earn 'rewards' in heaven by doing evangelism, and some gain personal satisfaction in 'winning' as if it were a game or competition. While these are not monetary payoffs, they can be emotional payoffs, and cause for the person to whom they witness to distrust them. Introverts in particular rarely will make a spur of the moment decision on something this important, requiring time to ponder and analyze it, as well as understand and learn about it. Being pushed by a salesman trying to close the sale is quite irritating to them as a result. At some point, after they have examined it, it is fine to ask for a decision, but not too quickly.
As a result, I think that a great many introverts find this kind of sales approach to the gospel to be demeaning to the gospel. In the first place many introverts will reject both the salesman and his message when pushed for a sale when they are not ready for that. Then there is also the fact that this sales approach often results in a partial understanding of the gospel that is really just 'cheap grace'. I think the sales approach to the gospel has strongly contributed to the idea that many folks seem to have that being a Christian consists simply of praying some simple prayer and then continuing to live your life the same way you always did.
This is not to say that never asking for a decision is OK. Most of us introverts still have to 'step up' to make the point that a personal decision is necessary. And it is still important to bring up the subject of the gospel and not just depend on our lives to be the witness. Explanation is still needed. But it does not make sense to me to essentially demand that somehow introverts must become extroverts in order to be 'good Christians'. There is more than one way to spread the gospel.
So, I think that true conversion requires a fundamental change of heart, and most introverts will not make that kind of decision in a sales-call situation. Most will distrust the salesman too much, and most will require time and thought to consider it fully. Extroverts may be more open to a sales approach just as they are also more open to being salesmen themselves than introverts are. However, even they need to be careful of avoiding a 'cheap grace' approach to the gospel.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
The passing of a generation
My parents are both from large families, one having 10 siblings and the other 12. My father died 8 years ago and last week was the funeral of one of his sisters; of the 11 children just one remains alive now. My mother's sister passed away later during the night after the funeral home visitation for my dad's sister. My mom is one of 13 (13 that lived; another 5 died in infancy or were stillborn) but now 5 of the 13 have passed and many of the others are in poor health. The generation of my parents is rapidly passing away.
This is yet another season of life it seems. We have been hearing about the veterans from World War 2 and how they all will soon be gone. My dad was one of those, having gone from Normandy to Berlin during WWII. Still, seeing so many in our extended family confront death does give pause to consider this season of life. When I finished college it seemed like everyone was getting married and there were tons of weddings to attend. A few years later there were babies being born to so many folks that it was hard to keep up with all the new babies among friends and relatives. Now it seems there is another season, a sadder one that contains too many funerals.
As I have been looking back on the lives of my parents and their siblings I am reminded of what they lived through. They grew up in the Great Depression and then World War II. Their stories of what that was like formed the backdrop for much of what they sought to impress upon me and my generation about the value of work, the value of money, the importance of pulling together when things are hard, and about faith in the midst of trial and hardship. I vividly recall sitting as child in my grandparents living room around the pot-bellied stove listening to the adults talk about the Depression, the war, the things they did to get by like trapping for furs, fishing and hunting to supply meat for the table, and the various trials and adventures of living on a farm in the Depression and during the rationing of the war. Yes, as in the John Denver song about 'Grandma's Feather-bed' they would also 'spit and chew' (King Bee twist tobacco was the chew of choice for my grandparents, as I recall). They wanted to spare us, their children, from those kinds of hardships but still hoped we would learn to share their values that were learned through that experience. In our family at least, the family itself was also highly valued and through our growing up my parents and their siblings made sure we often had reunions for the extended family to be together. For many years when a large group lived in the same area near Cincinnati we often had 3 or 4 reunion events every summer at Memorial Day, July 4, Labor Day and Christmas. Many of my mom's brothers boarded with us for a while after finishing high school while they found a job and 'got on their feet', as they moved from the farm to the city to find work. That is what family was for.
The family is more scattered now in differing locations; reunions are rare; the kind of closeness we experienced as I grew up in the extended family seems to be a thing of the past. The funerals this past week reminded me of all that. Our busy lives seem to have less time for family, especially extended family. I don't know if that can be re-instituted but I do feel we have lost something. As these family members pass I pause to remember how they were an important part of my life and the life of our whole extended family. They will be missed by many of us. Their legacy remains in the lives they touched.
This is yet another season of life it seems. We have been hearing about the veterans from World War 2 and how they all will soon be gone. My dad was one of those, having gone from Normandy to Berlin during WWII. Still, seeing so many in our extended family confront death does give pause to consider this season of life. When I finished college it seemed like everyone was getting married and there were tons of weddings to attend. A few years later there were babies being born to so many folks that it was hard to keep up with all the new babies among friends and relatives. Now it seems there is another season, a sadder one that contains too many funerals.
As I have been looking back on the lives of my parents and their siblings I am reminded of what they lived through. They grew up in the Great Depression and then World War II. Their stories of what that was like formed the backdrop for much of what they sought to impress upon me and my generation about the value of work, the value of money, the importance of pulling together when things are hard, and about faith in the midst of trial and hardship. I vividly recall sitting as child in my grandparents living room around the pot-bellied stove listening to the adults talk about the Depression, the war, the things they did to get by like trapping for furs, fishing and hunting to supply meat for the table, and the various trials and adventures of living on a farm in the Depression and during the rationing of the war. Yes, as in the John Denver song about 'Grandma's Feather-bed' they would also 'spit and chew' (King Bee twist tobacco was the chew of choice for my grandparents, as I recall). They wanted to spare us, their children, from those kinds of hardships but still hoped we would learn to share their values that were learned through that experience. In our family at least, the family itself was also highly valued and through our growing up my parents and their siblings made sure we often had reunions for the extended family to be together. For many years when a large group lived in the same area near Cincinnati we often had 3 or 4 reunion events every summer at Memorial Day, July 4, Labor Day and Christmas. Many of my mom's brothers boarded with us for a while after finishing high school while they found a job and 'got on their feet', as they moved from the farm to the city to find work. That is what family was for.
The family is more scattered now in differing locations; reunions are rare; the kind of closeness we experienced as I grew up in the extended family seems to be a thing of the past. The funerals this past week reminded me of all that. Our busy lives seem to have less time for family, especially extended family. I don't know if that can be re-instituted but I do feel we have lost something. As these family members pass I pause to remember how they were an important part of my life and the life of our whole extended family. They will be missed by many of us. Their legacy remains in the lives they touched.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Introverts in the Evangelical Church
I just completed reading a book entitled Quiet:The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking. The author is a former lawyer who was apparently successful (Harvard Law, affluent practice in New York) but unhappy with the match of her personality to her work and went on a search for a number of years to understand herself and introverts in general. The book is not written from a Christian perspective: she is from a Jewish family and speaks about living with her boyfriend (unmarried) and makes some other comments that generally indicate a philosophy that seems to think that whatever comes naturally is 'good'; there is not much indication of any acceptance that nature could be fallen or sinful. Nonetheless she has done her homework on introversion and its counterpart extroversion and makes some good points.
I found the discussion of both the church and MBA programs most interesting. My disdain for MBA programs is well known among my close colleagues at work since I consider the content of MBA programs to be closer to a 'certificate' program than a true professional degree like law or medicine. The well-defined body of knowledge is just not there. In this book, the author's time exploring the Harvard MBA program and interviewing some students there betrayed yet another issue: a clear bias toward extroversion as if that were a skill. It has been documented more than once that MBA students are much more likely to cheat than other graduate programs, and the glut of MBAs on Wall Street and their role in the 2008 financial crisis have raised questions about the integrity of the kinds of folks attracted to the 'elite' MBA programs. While the book does not resolve those questions it does reinforce a bias in those programs towards speaking out more than thinking deeply. This idea of 'leadership' leaves a lot to be desired.
Her overall thesis is that around the start of the 20th century there was a major shift away from the historic 'culture of character' to a culture of impressions, in which the impression you make is more important than your overall character. Others have made similar observations, but she connects this to a shift to a more dramatic bias towards extroverts in leadership roles than had been prior to that time. Folks like Lincoln and Washington were likely introverts and may have been rejected as leaders in more recent times. I think this thesis has some merit, though it is probably not the whole story.
The section on the evangelical church, though she is an 'outsider' to the evangelical culture, also makes some good points. Much of the discussion is based on Saddleback Church where Rick Warren is pastor. I have not been there, but she concludes that 'evangelical culture ties together faithfulness with extroversion'. Again, I think there is some truth to her assertion. It was clear to me back when I attended seminary that evangelical churches do not want pastors to be theologians or scholars so much as they want salesmen. Services leave little room for contemplation and quiet; some places make extroversion (specifically, an 'E' as the first letter in your Myers-Briggs personality assessment) a requirement for consideration. At one point she quotes a senior 'priest' (since she is Jewish, it is not clear to me whether this was an evangelical church or not since most evangelical churches don't have priests, though a few do) advises his parishes 'if the first letter isn't an E ' in their Myers-Briggs, 'then think twice....I am sure our Lord was an extrovert!' Then there is evangelism training, where everyone who is not making every chance contact into a presentation of the gospel is clearly unfaithful to the Great Commission!
She comments on how the church service at Saddleback reminds her of the 'Unleash the Power Within' seminar that Tony Robbins sells. Ouch! That is the seminar that tries to cajole everyone to do the 'Firewalk' (on hot coals) at the end (and recently lost a lawsuit due to injuries during one of those fire walks)!
I have concluded in recent years that some of my misunderstandings while growing up about what it means to be a Christian are as much a result of the cultural bias toward extroversion as they were to anything else. As a child, it was clear that a highly emotional and public 'conversion' was the preferred 'testimony', but that was not my experience. As a college student it was clear that doing 'cold call' evangelism was the preferred idea of a 'soul winner' but that was not how I came to faith nor was it the kind of witness that I saw bearing fruit among my friends. As I listened to evangelical preachers through the years, it has been clear that most are better at being salesmen than at being scholars. All of those display a bias to what the book calls 'the extrovert ideal'.
I have begun to think that perhaps the Reformed scholars, who are more scholars than salesmen, do better work in theology than most evangelicals because they have avoided 'the extrovert ideal'. In so doing, they actually have time to think instead of just talking all the time!
I found the discussion of both the church and MBA programs most interesting. My disdain for MBA programs is well known among my close colleagues at work since I consider the content of MBA programs to be closer to a 'certificate' program than a true professional degree like law or medicine. The well-defined body of knowledge is just not there. In this book, the author's time exploring the Harvard MBA program and interviewing some students there betrayed yet another issue: a clear bias toward extroversion as if that were a skill. It has been documented more than once that MBA students are much more likely to cheat than other graduate programs, and the glut of MBAs on Wall Street and their role in the 2008 financial crisis have raised questions about the integrity of the kinds of folks attracted to the 'elite' MBA programs. While the book does not resolve those questions it does reinforce a bias in those programs towards speaking out more than thinking deeply. This idea of 'leadership' leaves a lot to be desired.
Her overall thesis is that around the start of the 20th century there was a major shift away from the historic 'culture of character' to a culture of impressions, in which the impression you make is more important than your overall character. Others have made similar observations, but she connects this to a shift to a more dramatic bias towards extroverts in leadership roles than had been prior to that time. Folks like Lincoln and Washington were likely introverts and may have been rejected as leaders in more recent times. I think this thesis has some merit, though it is probably not the whole story.
The section on the evangelical church, though she is an 'outsider' to the evangelical culture, also makes some good points. Much of the discussion is based on Saddleback Church where Rick Warren is pastor. I have not been there, but she concludes that 'evangelical culture ties together faithfulness with extroversion'. Again, I think there is some truth to her assertion. It was clear to me back when I attended seminary that evangelical churches do not want pastors to be theologians or scholars so much as they want salesmen. Services leave little room for contemplation and quiet; some places make extroversion (specifically, an 'E' as the first letter in your Myers-Briggs personality assessment) a requirement for consideration. At one point she quotes a senior 'priest' (since she is Jewish, it is not clear to me whether this was an evangelical church or not since most evangelical churches don't have priests, though a few do) advises his parishes 'if the first letter isn't an E ' in their Myers-Briggs, 'then think twice....I am sure our Lord was an extrovert!' Then there is evangelism training, where everyone who is not making every chance contact into a presentation of the gospel is clearly unfaithful to the Great Commission!
She comments on how the church service at Saddleback reminds her of the 'Unleash the Power Within' seminar that Tony Robbins sells. Ouch! That is the seminar that tries to cajole everyone to do the 'Firewalk' (on hot coals) at the end (and recently lost a lawsuit due to injuries during one of those fire walks)!
I have concluded in recent years that some of my misunderstandings while growing up about what it means to be a Christian are as much a result of the cultural bias toward extroversion as they were to anything else. As a child, it was clear that a highly emotional and public 'conversion' was the preferred 'testimony', but that was not my experience. As a college student it was clear that doing 'cold call' evangelism was the preferred idea of a 'soul winner' but that was not how I came to faith nor was it the kind of witness that I saw bearing fruit among my friends. As I listened to evangelical preachers through the years, it has been clear that most are better at being salesmen than at being scholars. All of those display a bias to what the book calls 'the extrovert ideal'.
I have begun to think that perhaps the Reformed scholars, who are more scholars than salesmen, do better work in theology than most evangelicals because they have avoided 'the extrovert ideal'. In so doing, they actually have time to think instead of just talking all the time!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)