The 95% Dillusion

I have recently heard several "sermons" (in some cases literally sermons, in others lectures or authoritative papers, the type I give or write myself) to the effect that there are various phrases and clichés that need to be eliminated from our vocabulary. One is "thinking outside the box" and another is a form of either "we can't because we've never done it before" or "no one does it that way." Interestingly, one phrase suggests thinking and doing things differently from others, and the others suggest conformity. The lecturers consistently (something I find ironic in light of the fact that their arguments themselves seem to be inconsistent) state that when people use the phrases, they are generally being hypocritical in the one case (e.g. by thinking outside the box they mean thinking as they themselves think, regardless of how others think, not thinking in new unique ways,) or close minded regarding new approaches (as in we should do things the way we all have done it in the past.) In each case, it was not truly the phrases that the lecturers railed against but the concepts behind them.

From a logical point of view, I find this difficult to swallow. It makes as little sense to say we need to avoid both promoting thinking differently than the majority (even if we limit the scope of that difference to conformity to our own beliefs,) and always conforming to the majority, as it does to suggest we always adhere to both concepts. I do not know for sure the reasons for the arguments the homilists use, but they make little sense, at least when proposed by the same individuals in single sermons. The arguments seemed to boil down to the beliefs that we should avoid saying no to new experiences because of fear of the new, and that those who go against the stream often are just trying to do things differently for their own reasons. I suspect that there was supposed to be a middle ground argument, that it was alright to go against the stream for the right reasons, but in none of the cases I refer to was this argument ever made. Just "stop claiming to think outside the box" and "stop saying think inside the box."

The real irony for me is that the speakers/writers have all used the arguments that the criticized in their lectures as examples of undesirable attitudes in arguments (or, rather, to avoid arguments) with me. My work in cloud computing, social media, collaborative communication, history and archives has been dismissed as something that was "a fad, too much influenced by the popular culture, just going along with the crowd," on the one hand, and as something that should be dismissed out of hand because 95% of other churches/organizations/business do not do things that way on the other. In short, my ideas do not bear considering because they are both too mush the product of the way everyone else is thinking and because no one else does it that way. Back to the old quote: "Nobody goes to that restaurant anymore; it's too crowded!".

Oh, for my Christian preacher friends who tell me we do not need to institute some of these programs because 95% of the other churches they know about do not do them:

a) I have seen and experienced pretty convincing evidence that you are not up to date on such things. In more than one of my jobs and professional organization activities, I have discovered that there is a growing demand among local churches for this type of work. Those of us who work above the local church level as advisers to others have a hard time keeping up with the demand for our consulting services. The fact that such activities as records management and archives have been brought into the general world of litigation practices have increased the need for local churches to follow specific practices in history, archives, and use of the Internet. The number of churches to successfully implement these things is still fairly small, but these issues have been and are being addressed at all levels of several confessions and denominations, our own included. The statement that "95% do not do things that way" is demonstrably incorrect.

b) Should the (95% number have been correct, it is also likely that close to 95% of the churches of which I know do not have committed ministries to win disciples for Christ in their own immediate communities. Even should that number be lower, do you suggest that we use the same criterion for determining if we want to establish a more committed evangelism effort in the church? "Well, we could try to reach out to the un-churched, even those who have not heard the Gospel, in our neighborhood, but 95% (or 85%, 75%) of churches don't really do that in a committed way, so there is no reason for us to!"

Well, at least that would be consistent.

The Tonsured One

Thoughts on Christians and Politics #1

I have been reading a book on the role of the Christian in politics and discussing it with friends. One thing that fascinates me is how many people a) misunderstand (in my opinion) the role we have in government in this country and its relationship to our ability to live as Christians, b) seem to confuse the professed aims of government and politicians with our obligations as Christians, and c) fail to understand the historical role of individuals and non-governmental societies in helping those in need. I obviously cannot address all of these in any great depth in this post, but will start with these observations.

First, regardless of whether you believe that this country was founded on Christian principles or not, the founding document of the nation is the U. S. Constitution. The Declaration was a founding document, the unifying document of the Revolution that led to the new nation, but the Constitution is by definition what constitutes the form of government we have and is the foundation of that government. It is a living document in the sense that it continues to inspire and affect the people of this land, it is not a living document in the sense that it changes and adapts to every change in social values that may come along. Its very nature makes such a thought absurd. Besides the fact that a foundation is not much of a foundation if it is ever-changing, the document spells out specifically what rights the government may or may not exercise and restricts the majority from imposing its will on the minority at the expense of its rights. (Don't forget that the amendments are part of the Constitution.) It also acknowledges, not grants rights. "The right to... shall not be infringed," not "the right to... is granted." A document that protects the individual from a tyranny of the majority cannot change at the whim of culture through the dictates of that very majority!

As Christians, we support freedom to exercise our rights, acknowledging them as coming from God. We may strive to persuade others to join us in creating laws or a social atmosphere that will help protect those rights or influence behavior, but never at the expense of denying those rights. God gave us free will, which includes the ability to do stupid and even evil things. As members of society we choose to protect people from having their rights trampled by stupidity and evil, but we draw the line at trying to destroy free will and impose our own (or, at least we should.) If God didn't do it, how can we? God chose the path that protected our freedom, even allowing us to kill his son. God loves freedom. Trying to use politics to right wrongs by violating people's freedom in favor of desires of others is, in and of itself, evil. Or at best poor and un-Godly judgment.

b) The Methodist Church as an organization has on more than one occasion equated raising taxes with reducing poverty, opposing war on evil with promoting peace, allowing the violation of laws without consequences with mercy, and making large segments of society fit a statistical mold with justice. Besides the fact that history shows such methods flawed at best (we have been raising taxes for generations yet I keep hearing the poor are getting poorer, for instance) such concepts of justice are rooted in a totally secular vision. Only God determines what is “just” in the large scale of things, and he promises us grace and mercy, not justice. We don't get what we deserve, thank God.

Men can argue about what is just and right, but for the most part the methods used to try to reach our earthly standards of these concepts are not rooted in scripture. Like our rights, given to us by God, our responsibilities, also God given, cannot be taken away by or abdicated to a government or group. I have yet to find a scripture that says "For I was hungry and you selected a committee to take money from other people and give a portion to me, I was thirsty and you voted for someone who said he would give me drink (along with 30 unrelated amendments,) I was sick or in prison, and you held a concert to raise money to pay someone to visit me, and you deducted it on your taxes." We are to work as individuals to help others know God and overcome the obstacles of this world, with Christ's help. Of course we function as a body in Christ, but only so much as we voluntarily allow ourselves to be admitted to that body. We choose to do it. We choose to use the resources we have been given. The more resources we have at our disposal, the greater our opportunity and ability to do this.

But if the government doesn't do it no one will, right? That brings us to:

c) In spite of what my little brother tells me, there are ample records to show that we did not let people die in the streets before we declared war on poverty and started raising both taxes and the number of people enslaved by the welfare system, we did not let our parents and sick, mentally and physically handicapped family members die in gutters before we decided that Social Security and government supported institutions were better places for them and could do a better job of making decisions about their care than those of us with our thought processes clouded by love. There were not a greater percentage of people dying in botched, back-alley abortions than died in other surgeries versus today’s statistics. There were exceptions of course, but for the most part we took care of folks at least as well as we do today, given the changes in standard of living. There were benevolent societies that provided opportunities for individuals to pool their resources and take care of medical and burial expenses, societies that took care of widows and orphans, and organizations that fed, clothed and often housed the poor.

Many of these were secular in format, though often manned by believers. The churches, synagogues, and the few other religious institutions of those days also helped both their members and non-members. Life was harder then, to be sure, but that was true for the rich as well.

There is also a basic assumption among some that the government plans will be successful. When someone says that something must be done about health care, what makes them think that the current crop of politicians have any credentials that qualify them to make decisions that will meet that end?

I find it fascinating that many people feel that the absence of government intervention will bring about greater poverty, pain and suffering. For one thing, as noted earlier, as government has grown, the claim is that poverty has also grown. Perhaps shrinking the one would shrink the other. Besides, if only half the people who vote for tax increases, special social programs, or various means to bring about "justice" were able to take what they pay in taxes (half of those who actually pay taxes, that is) and spend it directly on the poor, they would make a larger financial impact than all the social programs we currently have just by bypassing the inefficiency of the government . Besides, they would be acting as individuals helping individuals, or part of the body helping the body, which might have a greater impact than all their money spent through proxies. Surely if they believe they are part of a great majority that believe in these programs they can expect that at least half their folk would put their money where their collective mouths are?

Bottom line: As Christians, we believe in helping others. I'll argue with folks about what really constitutes help in another time and place, but Jesus told us to do it, not to elect or appoint proxies to do it for us. God gave us free will and certain rights to be free, and as Christians we should not put ourselves in his place and try to restrict that will and those rights. Oh, one more thing, Jesus told us to spread the gospel to the world, making disciples, not to let the world give us its version of a gospel and make us its disciples. Culture does not dictate what our God-given rights and responsibilities are, nor can it take them away.

These opinions are my own. They may or may not be yours. I can live with that.

"The Tonsured One"