Lost Serendipity

I keep telling myself I'm not a Luddite and then I read something else that makes me wonder if I am.

Al Mohler's Daily Link List (a VERY helpful sampling of news articles related to cultural issues delivered to your email box) for today pointed me to this article about a Massachusetts prep school eschewing physical books.

That brought back to mind these reflections from Ken Myers referencing this VERY helpful article by Alan Jacobs. As one who has been dubbed an "ever curious child" by my colleague in ministry, serendipity is more of a lifestyle for me than it is anything else. Just walking in his office a few minutes ago and looking at his bookshelves revealed for the nth time that he owns a book I've known about and wanted to read for some years. These kids in Massachusetts won't have that experience, ever. Kind of sad.

When Health Care Gets Really Costly

I've never really been into the whole health care debate. Not sure why really. In fact this time around I told myself that I didn't have time to get into the details of this convoluted issue and attempt to make any sense of it. Well I've been sucked in. Reading this excellent article made me want to say something small for now.

Near the end of the linked piece Towey says, "I lived and worked in an AIDS home in the mid-1980s and saw first-hand how the dying wanted more than health care—they wanted someone to care." This is my passion in this debate. We want to "solve" a problem by throwing money at it.

I'm all for good health and good health care. Under new insurance in a new state with a newly pregnant wife, it can be daunting and frankly a bit nerve wracking because it's all different. I admit that it's a delicate situation with a lot of considerations. My concern is that the proper considerations are not in view.

Why can't people afford health insurance? Doesn't that seem like a better problem to solve? The reason this problem is not the one that's on the table is because solving the "why" problem would take personal work by people. Economic development of individual families is a family to family, person by person work. Now that's expensive, personally expenssive. And if we're honest, we'd rather open our wallets to more taxes than open our lives to the hard work of helping other families experience the prosperity we have.

Just like the AIDS patients Towey knew wanted more than health care, those unable to afford health insurance around us need more than our tax dollars, they need our personal love and care for them. That's when health care gets really costly, when it costs us ourselves. And yet this is what is really loving, to look at the long term, multi-generational effect of what we're doing instead of "feeling good" by throwing money at a complex problem.

The problem with what is being proposed in Washington is not that it is too costly. It's costly to our wallets, don't get me wrong. But if we want something more than a solution for a single generation that has to be renewed and funded for the next generation, then it will cost us more than tax dollars. It will cost us time, love, and care.

A Gospel Way That Is Neither Liberal Nor Conservative

Okay, so I'm home on my day off supposedly finishing a fence project that I started last summer. The wife and kids are gone to the zoo to give me peace and space. I look forward to their return even as I enjoy work in peace. As I work I'm listening to the radio and what I'm listening to is hacking me off.

At present I'm listening to Michael Medved. He's talking about this story which I agree is horrific. But the way he's talking about it reveals the paucity of his conservative Jewish worldview.

How does liberal politics deal with sex offenders? Here's in a nutshell (the fence awaits my attention after all!) what a liberal view says: criminals are not bad people, yes they've done some bad things, but if they get a better view on life via rehabilitation (like education only later in life after you've screwed up), they can reenter society.

How does conservative politics deal with sex offenders? Here's the summary: criminals are bad people, that's why they've done bad things, they may be convinced that the spoils of crime don't add up to the benefits of right living, if so they can be released but if not keep them locked up and never let them back in society. This last phrase is what Medved is saying about the recently arrested man who kept the sex slave for 19 years.

Here's my hasty analysis... the liberal gets it wrong because they don't see people as really broken and sinful. The conservative gets it wrong because although they see people as truly broken they don't believe true internal transformation is possible.

The gospel way to think about this (and apologies in advance if this offends you, but if it offends you, you've got more of the gospel to understand my friend) would follow these lines: we're all broken and sinful including sexually, we express our brokenness in different ways, some people are more careful with their sexual perversion than others, but all people - NO MATTER WHAT kind of sexual perversion they have (and we all have them, including the writer and the reader!) - can be freed from the power of that perversion by conversion under the gospel and kept from that perversion by the power of the Holy Spirit.

This perspective is lacking in Medved. Sadly it's also lacking in other conservative talking heads who espouse Christianity or a form of it. We can't leave "perverts" hopeless or we leave ourselves hopeless. Either the gospel applied by the Holy Spirit CAN transform the "very worst" of sinners or its simply something to help us "lesser sinners" get along in life. Which is it?

A Smaller Pea Shooter Than They Think

This past Sunday's Seattle Times had a Sunday magazine article covering World Vision, a non-profit ministry based in Federal Way (a city on the I-5 corridor between Seattle and Tacoma). You can read the article here.

Before I take a broadside at World Vision, let me be complimentary first. It is laudable to seek the relief of the poor. Helping people who can barely eat or who don't have clean water or who have no opportunities for schooling is fabulous work. I'm all for it. But... I'm all for it within a larger context of work World Vision and other non-profits must also do.

My beef with World Vision (and frankly with tons of non-profits, NGO's, and "ministries") is they are very shortsighted in their work. Relief of the poor is good. On the other hand, thoughtful economic development via worldview transformation is far better, farther reaching, and (most importantly!) more effective, life transforming, and generationally freeing. Let me explain ...

Maybe you've heard the Chinese proverb, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." World Vision's approach is very "Give a man a fish." Or, at the most, there is with schooling and micro loans the hope that somehow those efforts will help "feed him [or her] for a lifetime". However, without worldview transformation wholesale economic development is impossible.

Trillions spent in the developed and undeveloped world don't lie. Have some been fed for a day or two? Yes. But have whole countries or even villages or tribes been developed economically? Rarely if ever in the past 100 years. Why? Because the fundamental things that would have to happen for that to occur World Vision chooses not to do.

World Vision seems humble knowing they are up against a great Goliath. Towards the end of the article Richard Stearns is quoted saying, "We're aiming at global poverty with a pea shooter." I agree and not just because we're little creatures trying to solve a very large problem. By choosing "feed a man for day" (or at best for a lifetime) instead of the wiser goal of worldview transforming economic development they've used a smaller pea shooter than they think.

The Seattle Times Magazine rticle writer (Janet I. Tu, The Seattle Times religion reporter) notes, "The organization does not proselytize and serves all, regardless of their faith." I'm in full agreement with the second part of this statement. Loving your neighbor can't be selective.

For historic Christians though, it is radically unloving to your neighbor to not seek their conversion. A person fed in this life (even fed for a lifetime!) is slightly happier now but will be forever unhappy when this life ends if they don't turn to Christ. "Deeds without creeds" kill not save.

And there's more sadness that comes with this approach ... let me illustrate this sadness with a surprising statistic. Do you know what is most likely to land a child in America in poverty? Having a single parent. All other issues aside (including ethnicity, geography, family history, skills, etc.) the way to end up poor is to grow up in a family where (most likely) Dad isn't around. Poverty persists where family structure doesn't in America. And where does a glad embrace of family structure come from? A Christian worldview that flows out of a person being proselytized into the Christian faith. If we want less poor kids in America, we need more Dads that stay around for more than one night.

What about around the world? In my studies in economic development (ask me in the comments for reading suggestions if you're curious) the two greatest factors that prevent the economic development of a particular geography are political instability/corruption and the worldview of the people. Let me offer some brief comments on each of these.

Big dollars amounts given in "economic aid" to developing countries rarely end up feeding the hungry. Why? Corrupt, unaccountable politicians line their own pockets and feed their cronies in style while suppressing and starving the opposition. Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe is the expert in this style of country-raping oppression. But it happens everywhere where aid comes in.

Big governments simply aren't equipped to selflessly bless the citizenry if they aren't Christians or don't have a heritage of accountable democracy that flows out a Christian worldview. Even in America where we have that kind of political heritage the corrupt hearts we all possess reveal their dark side in graft, corruption, fraud, and other forms of malfeasance. Developing countries rarely have governments that can effectively bring about a fair distribution of aid. So we feel good that we "helped" but at best we fed a man for day.

Just as the worldview of a government has a large effect on how they govern the citizenry (or abuse it as the case is frequently in the developing world), so also does the worldview of the citizens. Many times the worldview of the citizens PREVENTS their own economic development.

I should say as an aside here (and thanks goes to Dr. Peter Jones, a mentor of mine who sharpened me at this point) that when I talk about "economic development" I'm not saying that a suburb of Dhaka should look like my neighborhood in West Seattle. Simply exporting the selfish affluence of the West would be to import a degree of curse instead of blessing. I'm not pushing for the developing world to reach a point where they are as unhappy as we are in our wealth. Rather, what I'd like to see is children who grow up fed, whose health is cared for, who have the opportunity to learn, participate in the arts, worship their Maker, and use their gifts for the blessing of their city and God's Kingdom.

But at present so many live in grinding poverty with no hope of anything else. World Vision (compassionately and laudably!) wants to see this change. My point though is this ... without proselytizing, that is without wholesale change in worldview, many developing countries cannot economically develop. Why? The nuts of bolts of what can lead to economic development are not in place so it can't happen.

Though I LOVE the concept of micro-lending (it's one the best on the ground ideas in familial economic development to come along in years), it's single generational. Let me explain ... Suppose a male child grows up in a family with a single mom who gets a micro loan but never gets any sort of worldview training that would result from his family becoming Christians. That male child will likely go on in his own life better fed, perhaps in slightly better health and with more schooling but with the same ethics as his own father. All the system does (without proselytizing that leads to worldview change) is perpetuate the need for the woman this male child eventually impregnates having to get her own micro loan after he knocks her up and leaves.

I know this kind of speech is straightforward and not very politically correct. To many it is anathema to say that for people to develop economically their culture and belief system must change. But it must or else we are actually slightly loving instead of fully loving.

An example of how worldview affects economic development is in order. A story is told by Bryan Chapell in his book Holiness by Grace of his accomplished farmer father going to Africa to attempt to try to help some poverty stricken farmers grow more crops. Chapell's father suggests they implement some modest technology to help them yield more. They refuse and remain in poverty. Why? According to their worldview, if they changed the way they farmed the land their ancestors had farmed for hundreds of years, the spirits might be upset and they might not have more crops but less. In their minds, it was better to subsist in poverty than risk upsetting the spirits.

It's a small example but it could be multiplied across cultures and countries. Where reality (i.e. the Christian worldview) is embraced, right thinking, right ethics, and right living result from the transformed hearts of people who live differently in Christ. And economic development happens when good ideas (like relief and micro-lending) are combined with proselytizing that results in worldview shift. Where this doesn't happen we actually aren't being all that loving.

World Vision is shooting a big problem with a smaller pea shooter than they think. And they don't have to, it's just easier to.

As I finish this missive I realize I have proposed something different, only theorized and critiqued. What would real help to the poor of the world look like? It's happening in Uganda right now. Ministerial candidates come to Westminster Theological College and Seminary and learn not just the ministry but also the basics of how to support themselves and teach others to do the same. So they bring back to where they minister not just the gospel but a form of life that is economically ahead of subsistence. This form of life is what they spread as the church grows.

This kind of effort is fully loving, multi-generational, and long-sighted. But would pluralist, pagan, "I want to feel like I'm doing something" American donors give to such an effort. Unlikely. Ironically so many in the West want the feeling of helping without really helping. We enjoy the prosperity such worldview transformation brought about in the West hundreds of years ago but won't multiply that - because of our paganism - to the developing world. Not very loving is it. But it is what is going on.

Syncretism As the Solution?

This article from the Boston Globe contains an interesting take on how religions should consider each other. This article pleads for more than a peaceful coexistence. Instead it ponders a world where 9/11 and Mumbai would be impossible because the great faiths would get along and see that they only have a piece of the great spiritual pie to themselves. Many religions will be willing to join this kind of effort as they are linked by a spiritual core of explaining the world by the world. Despite the wishes of Jenkins (the author of the Boston Globe article) bemoaning an age past of syncretism, Christianity cannot be syncretistic in its outlook. We proclaim a faith of a Creator who is distinct from all and created all. Worship not directed to the Creator (Yahweh) is idolatry and finally can't satisfy the longings of the human heart. It is for this reason that syncretism is profoundly unloving and unsatisfactory. Only if we hate people should we go this route of syncretism between the religions.

Helpful Economic Perspective

I was forwarded in an email this article. I find it a much needed and helpful perspective. It's got me musing. Hope it does the same for you.

The Scary World On the Other Side of the Slider

For well over a year God's been working on me in a big area of rebellion in my own life. My big sin ... refusing to be content to be a mere creature. I've been tempted to dismiss this as a little thing. But the longer I've dwelt on it and meditated on my own attitudes in comparison to God's Word, the more I've become convinced it's one of the most insidious and prevalent sins I commit.

It's insidious because the more I think about it the more I realize that multiple daily sins flow from it. It's prevalence is staggering in that this sinful way of thinking has been for 19 years of Christian living my default mode of life.

Let me explain the title and then describe a bit of what I've learned. It's as though in my life there is a sliding glass door I can see through. The world on the other side of the sliding glass door is more pleasant, more honoring to God, less stressful, and involves living in the real world God made. I don't live in that world except rarely. I can see how nice that world would be but it scares me.

I've always been one of those annoying type A people (well at least annoying for non A's). I've always believed I could get it done in the world. And I did well in the world before I began doing ministry. Then things got scary.

For years I've taught that the more you believe John 15:5 the better your discipleship will go. But my practice of that verse has not kept up with my teaching of it. In the spiritual realm things are quite different than in the realm of making good grades or playing a sport or leading a team. While all of those activities require God given skills, if you use the skills you'll likely succeed in the world's eyes. Not so in ministry.

One can do all the right things in ministry and still not "succeed" as many measure success (Harry Reeder says a false way of evaluating success is the "nickels and noses" test). No, ministry is a God thing in which you play a part but don't fully determine (or many times even partially determine) the outcome. That is, there is much ambiguity in ministry as there is in life in general. And that's where things get scary for me.

Why are they scary? Because I can't be the one in control of how things end up. In my more lucid moments I can see that I'm not the one in control of how things end up and that this is a good thing. If only those moments were more frequent.

I look through the sliding glass door and see how wonderful it would be to be comfortable being a mere creature and yet I feel so far from that. I show all the symptoms of wanting to be God instead of being content to be a creature. What are my symptoms you ask? Let me name a few:

• Fear/worry/anxiety
• An "I can do it" spirit evidenced by relative prayerlessness
• Expectations of myself and others which are unrealistic
• Perpetual rehashing of things said or done with prayer and wisdom which didn't work out well
• Concern over the reactions of people to whom I've acted righteously but over whom I have no control

Maybe you exhibit some of these symptoms as well. With the help of CJ Mahaney's helpful little book Humility I've come to see that my unwillingness to be content within my creaturely limits is plain old pride. Like my first parents Adam and Eve I'm daily seduced by Satan's oldest line, "you can be like God". I'm coming to see that I wasn't made for that.

So much of the expectation I put on myself about the past, present, and future isn't stress God expects me to carry. I'm now in the business of trying to see that the world on the other side of the slider - where I'm content to be a mere creature - is the desireable world. I'm seeking for God to convince me of my limits and to help me embrace and enjoy them rather than living in unreality where I expect of myself that which God doesn't.

Unknotting a Challenging Text

This morning a good friend emailed me this question, "What's your take on Rom 7: 9;11? Paul, had already claimed to be dead in Christ, a bit confusing. Love to here your thoughts."

Here's my response....

Why don't you pick easy passage for me to interact with you about?

I think where Paul is going is to say something similar to Romans 3:20. Before we are aware of the expectation of God - to keep his commands perfectly - we think ourselves alive. But once we see ourselves in light of the law, suddenly we see that the way we've been living is sinful. To our apprehension what was "okay" before suddenly is seen in a new light. Where I thought I was alive I now realized I was actually dead and the knowledge of sin brought that about. I can't recall when you realized that you were a sinner. When I realized I was, it felt like I died. I had always thought I was a good kid and when God brought me to the realization that I was bad, not good, it was depressing.

By the way, I think in background Paul is here reflecting in Romans 7 on both his pre-Christian experience and also his "in Christ" experience. These verses are a look back in my opinion.

Okay back to the main point. The commandments are supposed to be the best path, the best that life can be lived. They are to be life and joy. Paul isn't trying to say something like, "the law has the same power as the Holy Spirit to bring life to the dead". Though Psalm 119 says some great things about the law, that isn't the point Paul is trying to make. God's commandments are supposed to be a life giving blessing but when we realize that we can't and don't keep them we realized we've been duped and the law that was supposed to be good for us becomes a curse to us due to our disobedience. This deceit is like that of Hebrews 3:13.

How Many Assumptions Can You Count?

I was just reading this article on the Boston Globe website. It is stunning in the assumptions which the writer brings to the table. Let me highlight a few with a few comments thrown in.

• "An increase in the price for prescription birth control obtained at
  campus health centers has some college officials worried that students
  will be at greater risk for unwanted pregnancies." - unless the students were abstinent resulting in zero risk for unwanted pregnancies.
  
• "The price increase has left Massachusetts college campuses scrambling to accommodate students' needs." - this sure seems like a huge assumption. Since when has contraception been a "need" rather than a desire?
• "Imani Williams, a sophomore at UMass-Boston, said, 'If the problem is
  children having children, then contraception shouldn't cost so much.' - how can it be that no one is thinking about abstinence as a form of contraception that costs nothing?
• "Angus G. McQuilken, a spokesman for the Planned Parenthood League of
  Massachusetts, said his organization has been lobbying Congress to
  change the law. 'Birth control is basic healthcare. Making birth
  control less affordable for college students and low-income women is
  bad public policy, and counter to the goal of reducing unintended
  pregnancies,' he said. - if it's basic healthcare then why don't we overtly tell young people who don't want to get pregnant that the healthiest they can be is abstinent?

The above, besides being annoying reveals that the culture assumes that kids are rabid sexual creatures incapable of not having sex and that we should do all we can to support them indulge their animal nature. This is not only harmful but demeaning to those made in the image of God.

A Brief Critique of Torture

Early on in my blog career I considered posting on torture when the Abu Ghraib scandal broke. I'm not quite sure why I eventually didn't post anything. But the topic nags me periodically and today I felt like saying something.

My thoughts are not a well developed nuanced political philosophy. They more flow from some personal growth I've been experiencing in my own Christian life. Believe it or not I'm going to link my sinful tendencies towards worry, anxiety, and fear of the future to torture. I believe them linked because both seek knowledge of the future which isn't available to us as mere creatures. That is both are an idolatry, a seeking to be God instead of a mere creature.

Let me carry this brief critique forward with some questions.

1) Do individuals and governments have a responsibility to care for life taking measures to protect it? Yes. The positive side of the sixth commandment requires caring for our lives and the lives of others.

2) Can torture by a government be a legitimate means of caring for the lives of the people governed? No.

I know that seems bold and narrow and straight forward with no gray areas. Personal and and national security can be an idol. Perhaps you know a germophobe. They're miserable to be around because they try to so protect they and their children's lives from germs that they can hardly do anything with anybody. They're paralyzed by their fear. They do foolish things because of their fear of the future; knowledge of which is unavailable to them.

I liken torture to this same kind of thinking. Unwilling to trust God with what may well be a violent end to the lives of some of our citizens we instead disobey God through dehumanizing people. The seeking of information about the future can be an idolatry in itself. Is torture really something different than other clearly pagan ways of trying to find out the future? Isn't all this an inability to reconcile our finitude as creatures with our lust for knowledge? Isn't this precisely what Eve and Adam sought in the garden, to be like God?

These are preliminary thoughts for sure. But it's an angle on torture that I haven't heard but which needs to be heard.