Should Tolerance be Limited?

In any time of controversy, there are claims of tolerance, intolerance, and intolerance of intolerance. The last one has gotten a lot of play time post-election, with people claiming those protesting the election and criticizing Trump voters are intolerant in their promotion of tolerance. I understand this argument well, as I claimed and experienced intolerance of different views during my time in Berkeley by some of the residents. Some of the "tolerant" ultra-liberals would write people off for having a view that even remotely smacked of conservatism.

So is that again what is going on now with the anti-Trump sentiment? Should tolerance be completely unconditional? Is intolerance of intolerance hypocritical?

It's probably helpful to start with the definition of tolerance. Google's first definition is:

The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

And since defining a tolerance with tolerate may not be all that great, let's see what Google says about tolerate:

Allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

I think this is really helpful, as it focused on allowing difference of opinion. This is really foundational in democratic (as in democracy, not the Democratic party) society. If we cannot allow differences of opinion and get along, society falls apart. Although this is also the reason for many wars over the years. As people live closer together, we have increasing encounters with people who are different from us.

How well we can we deal with that reflects on our level of tolerance. Most folks I know (and likely everyone who will read this) would agree with that basic idea--we want to tolerate differences.

But the reality is we all have our limits. How different can someone be before we say, "No"? What thoughts and ideas are too extreme before they get censored?

The biggest apparent irony is when those who promote tolerance draw the line at ideas that do not accept diversity. Is this contradictory to their tolerant ideals?

I think it's helpful to also get beyond definitions and consider the ideals that drive tolerance. These are oversimplifications, but hopefully helpful.

A major reason for tolerance is driven from a social justice perspective that there is inherent value in each person and in dialogue and discussion reflecting many opinion. It helps enhance and shape greater understanding of the world and ourselves. Therefore, we need to protect ideas that may seem different. This is what's behind academic freedom, the theological idea of soul liberty, discussion groups, and even some parts of freedom of the press. However, this motivator has quite a range of tolerance levels and endorsement of what kinds of things can be valuable.

When someone values tolerance in order to bring people together, limits to tolerance (meaning times of intolerance) make sense. Tolerance is an active process that helps give people recognition. If an idea misrepresents or disregards another group's rights or perspective, tolerance ends. We can see examples of not tolerating murder, rape, many forms of crimes foundationally, not just as a practical element of society.

We can make an argument that Jesus displayed intolerance in the temple when he threw out the vendors. He made many efforts to create an inclusive group, from tax collectors to prostitutes to temple priests, but his tolerance ended when people were stopping other people's access to God.

I would make an argument that tolerance should be limited when ideas misrepresent, disregard, disrespect, and make no effort or willingness to seek understanding of another viewpoint. Unfair intolerance by the tolerant (and yes, it definitely exists) happens when we do not accept a different perspective, but people's rights are not violated, etc. For instance, slavery should not be tolerated. White supremacy/nationalism should not be tolerated. Violence toward any group with provocation (including law enforcement, racial groups, and faith groups) should not be tolerated.

So what has been happening post-election? A lot of misunderstanding! While some may complain just because of a loss and display unfair intolerance, the consistent message I hear is not rejecting ideas just because they don't like the ideas, but because the ideas promoted fundamentally misrepresent, disrespect, and disregard other groups. There is not an effort to gain accurate information or even dialogue.

Many people don't see this. They either haven't heard things that have been said (this has been far more common than I realized) and/or they have trouble understanding how problematic the words are. So I ask all to listen, to truly listen, to the other views and hear the authentic concerns. There are authentic concerns on both sides.

If we can listen with respect and humility, then we build authentic, helpful tolerance. Regardless, many of us will continue to stand intolerant of disrespect, of misrepresentation, and of disregarding other people and groups.

Stop Calling Presidential Candidates Mentally Ill

Election season can be downright crazy. And it's not infrequent that policies, parties, and candidates also get labelled as "crazy." This may be the first year that at least one candidate is explicitly being called mentally ill as an argument against him.

Trump's behavior has been appalling to many, including within the GOP, who have withdrawn support because of his antics. I've seen at least one petition that asks for him to be explicitly diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder. I've seen others more casually call him mentally ill as a way to dismiss him. All of this is used in a derogatory way and to argue for someone in the GOP to deem him unfit for office and candidacy.

For those of us in the behavioral health field, a major part of reforming systems and improving access to care is reducing stigma. Deeming someone unfit for office due to mental illness fundamentally reverses decades of work.

Mental illness does not necessarily mean someone is unstable.

Mental illness does not necessarily mean someone cannot work in highly complex and responsible jobs.

Mental illness does not necessarily mean someone cannot have a "normal" life.

Mental illness simply means someone has a health concern. We all have health concerns at some points in our lives. Oh, and by the way, half of all people will meet criteria for a diagnosable mental illness at some point in their lives.

No diagnosis or mental disorder alone disqualifies someone from office, in my opinion (Trump's biggest problems aren't due to mental illness). In fact, some research indicates that about half of all Presidents have had mental illness. Others have already noted that narcissism isn't a death sentence for politics. In fact, any level of politics, especially rising to the level of President probably requires some level of narcissism--one has to have some level of grandiosity to seek what is commonly considered the most powerful position on the planet.

However, effective use of narcissism or other symptoms of mental illness can lead an individual to great success. Consider the classic phrase that our greatest strengths are our greatest weaknesses. People with any struggle can turn it into something effective. That's called resilience and recovery. And it's what gives hope to those with mental illness.

Politico published a good analysis of asking whether Americans would even elect someone with mental illness, clearly addressing the on-going stigma attached with this label. In short, politicians are generally forced to hide any sense of mental illness even though plenty of them have it. How sad is that?

In a time when we're talking about glass ceilings being broken, please don't strengthen the glass ceiling related to mental illness.

Black Lives Matter and the Good Samaritan

Yesterday, our pastor, Rev. Dr. Shawn Zambrows, preached a powerful and timely sermon on the Good Samaritan. I highly recommend listening to it, if you're so inclined. In it, she cites Martin Luther King, Jr's I've Been to the Mountaintop sermon, where he states:

And so the first question that the priest asked, the first question that the Levite asked was, "If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?" But then the Good Samaritan came by, and he reversed the question: "If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?"

During the sermon, I reflected on the many debates and memes I've seen on social media, the blogosphere, etc. on Black Lives Matter, Blue Lives Matter, All Lives Matter, and so on. Some have argued the historical and systemic problems that require an emphasis on the lives of African-Americans, without diminishing the importance of all lives. Others say that singling out any group fundamentally diminishes the values of others.

What if we're asking the wrong question in this debate? Could King's hypotheses about the underlying questions of the priest, Levite, and Samaritan be at work again?

I understand the All Lives Matter argument quite well. In it, there's a bit of, "What about me? Doesn't my life matter?" That's a fair and valid reaction. But it's also a little bit of the "What will happen to me?" side.

At the moment, the people in need of particular systemic assistance and change are African-Americans. We should be not be asking in response, "what will happen to me if I help individually and/or systemically." We should ask, "What will happen to them if I don't help?" And part of that help is acknowledging that Black Lives Matter in the face of a myriad of experiences that indicate otherwise.

What will happen to them if we just continue to generically say All Lives Matter? What will happen to them if we say Black Lives Matter? What harm would come by calling out a constantly invalidated group by agreeing that Black Lives Matter? We have to put ourselves aside a bit for that to happen.

Book Review: Ordinary: Extraordinarily Bad

With a lot of my interest in valuing the Brother Lawrence-esque approaches to life, I was eager and hopeful to read Ordinary: How to Turn the World Upside Down. The book description is very much in line with what I like to emphasize:

What if the path toward an extraordinary life is becoming more ordinary?

Ordinary is not a call to be more radical. If anything, it is a call to the contrary. The kingdom of God isn’t coming with light shows, and shock and awe, but with lowly acts of service. Tony Merida wants to push back against sensationalism and “rock star Christianity,” and help people understand that they can make a powerful impact by practicing ordinary Christianity.

Through things such as humble acts of service, neighbor love, and hospitality, Christians can shake the foundations of the culture. In order to see things happen that have never happened before, Christians must to do what Christians have always done­. Christians need to become more ordinary. 

Let’s think together about how we, ordinary people, doing ordinary things, might turn the world upside down.

However, the book is minimally about the value of ordinary things. Rather, it is really a rather legalistic argument for some social acts with a lot of assumptions, offensive statements, and bad theology. Sadly, the narration made the entire book sound like a dry speech rather than something with passion and life behind it.

The biggest problem I had with this text was Merida's reasons for loving others. In biblical Christianity, we love others because we are infused with the love of God and this is the fundamental frame with how we approach other people. However, Merida asks us to love people to meet Jesus’ commands, to be able to preach the Gospel explicitly, and to show the world that Christians are not all that bad. These are not the reasons Jesus asks us to love our neighbor. They may be added benefits, but if we do "good works" for these reasons, we functionally doing the acts for manipulative purposes, and we will hurt and damage other people.

This is where he gets into some of his offensive framings. Some examples:

• He talks about foster care not costing anything financially and actually coming with financial incentives. While technically true, we shouldn't even be discussing this if we're approaching foster care out of divine compassion. Having worked with plenty of foster families, I've seen some who essentially do it for the allowance. It's incredibly damaging. Those who foster for the right reasons wind up spending plenty of their own money.
• Merida horribly adds stigma to foster youth when he explains that foster youth often age out with only $500, which doesn’t last long, so that is why, he argues, that it's not surprising that many former foster youth turn to crimes, gangs, and prostitution. He needs to do some accurate research and recognize the implications of sharing uninformed slices of the lives of the voiceless. This statement does nothing to help the situation and likely only damages a very difficult system.
• He also adds stigma to prisoners. While encouraging readers to welcome prisoners into their homes, he explains how one family told the prisoner he could not be at home without another member present, and the father told his daughter to block the door with her dresser at night. This framing just reinforces negative (and often inaccurate) stereotypes about the untrustworthy and dangerous nature of former prisoners.
• Merida sounded self-congratulatory about adopting a fifth child from Ethiopia after four adoptions from the Ukraine: Their reason for adoption was because "We had enough love in our hearts." He talked about the need to rescue children as fundamental to adoption. Later, he calls adoption the "Cinderella doctrine of Pauline doctrine." As being a proud adoptive parent, this is the kind of approach to adoption that stigmatizes adoption and causes true psychological damage in adoptees.
• On a related note, his cultural insensitivity is astounding. He told stories of his Ukrainian-born son wanting a "sun tanned" brother (referring to his Ethiopian heritage) without recognizing the potential problematic interpretation. I don't blame the child; but this is a learning moment, even if to the reader only. He also talks later about his Ethiopian-born child not wanting to eat salad and thinking of his own mother's response to his asking why he needed to eat food: Because there are starving children in Africa. Rather than talking about how international adoption has opened his worldview and challenged his assumptions, he casually states, "Well, I guess that's not always true."

Merida also states things that are just wrong, both socially and theologically, that contribute to stigma and culture wars. Towards the end of the book, he asserts that despair is one of the greatest sins. This is one of the most psychologically harmful statements Christians make. And there's not legitimate theological support for it.

He also states at the start of the book about tolerance being problematic because we should not agree with others in the name of tolerance. Except tolerance is not agreement. It is simply acknowledging differences and allowing differences to exist without trying to force the other person to change. By incorrectly stating that one must agree in order to be tolerant, Merida is effectively advocating for a homogenous culture.

Finally, he argues that a quote attributed to Francis of Assisi ("preach the Gospel always, and if necessary, use words") is wrong. Merida emphasizes that words are always required, as we much explicitly direct people toward Christ. Some Christians believe this, but I find this to be a legalistic, narrow interpretation of the Gospel that misses its true heart, along the lines of the start of this review.

Ultimately, the book title and description is completely misleading. Merida argues that any ordinary person can engage in acts that some may call social justice (I have a hard time calling what he's saying social justice as the true justice component is missing, and there is a lot of social inaccuracies and offensiveness), but his whole book is about encouraging people to engage in prescribed activities that explicitly match biblical mandates.

In contrast, some of the central beauty of the Gospel is that lives (and even social systems) can be transformed by simply living life in a Christ-like way, loving people out of a fundamental character virtue stance of love and valuing of life and making simple decisions that contribute to systemic change that treats all people as made and loved by God.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

When Do We Engage in Debate?

Once again, great debate is raging in Christendom, casting judgment on who's in and who's out of Christ's love. Much text has been spilled on both sides of the World Vision debate. And I'm not sure much good is coming of the debate itself (likely because it's the equivalent of much yelling). My wife wrote a wonderful response (and I'm quite proud of her eloquence--I'm confident I wouldn't have had that much grace at the time).

As we saw people cite clobber verses that were completely decontextualized, I had an urge to argue their poor hermeneutics, history, and theology. My wife thought no good would come of it, as I wouldn't change their minds.

She's right--no amount of discussion, debate, or arguing will change the minds of people doing the talking. But can it impact those who are listening?

I've been in situations before when I felt the need to offer another opinion, not even necessarily to change the minds of anyone, but to raise awareness that people have honest disagreement and that other conclusions are possible. Last week, I asked if people really always reject the living God when they reject an angry, wrathful God. The problem is that often the only God some people have been told about is that one, narrow view. Without another option, many people feel like they lose all faith by changing their views.

In a similar fashion, if people believe the only way to be a Christian is one particular theological construct, when they have a concern with that perspective, then they either ignore their own reactions (which is problematic in many ways) or they feel like they have to abandon their faith completely. That is not fair (nor theologically accurate to most of Christendom) and only leads to more crises of faith rather than the building up of the body of Christ.

I loved World Vision's initial letter because it beautifully preached the centrality of love and unity in the Gospel. Their bullied retraction was the opposite, overemphasizing one issue that despite what they said, is not central nor fundamental to the Christian faith and never has been (except in a few minority denominations in the past decade).

Will we change the minds of those who publicly decried World Vision's grace? No. But if we stay silent and only allow Pharisaical voices to reign without dissent, then what message are we sending? The method is important, and there are many who responded in a much more appropriate and grace-filled way than I ever could.

But when is staying silent in the face of disagreement the best option? We see both responses from Jesus: from knocking over tables in the temple court to acting rather non-responsive in the face of crucifixion. As with most things, there is likely no perfect rule or formula. Context matters. But I'm not sure silence is always the best policy...

Guest Post: Ashamed of Christian Intolerance

This is a guest post from my wife, who so eloquently commented on the World Vision debacle.

---------------------------------------------------------------

I never post opinions about hot-button issues, but I’m so upset and ashamed with the way that some of my fellow Christians have been representing my faith lately that it’s really bugging me. My heart is hurting. Prepare to witness a rare Laci rant.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/march-web-only/world-vision-why-hiring-gay-christians-same-sex-marriage.html

Really?!? Thousands of Christians suddenly pulling funds that go to a STARVING CHILD because they don’t want gay Christians in a committed relationship working to help feed that child?!?? I’m embarrassed that World Vision was essentially bullied into reversing their (brave) policy. And that’s exactly what it was, bullying...threats of pulling funding unless they explicitly and publicly called out homosexuality as a sin, and said you can't work there if you disagree. Why did it have to go there? This is not about whether being gay is right or wrong. People missed the point completely. You can think it’s a sin and be a Christian, and you can think it’s not our place to judge and STILL be a Christian. That’s a whole separate issue that I’m not discussing here, it’s not relevant. They were not saying it was right or wrong, they were saying “let’s not be so divisive. There’s been a lot of hurt caused by this debate...we want to be an example in working together despite our differences and not discriminating.” Sexuality is not central to our faith, as much as many seem to think it is the be all end all. Very little of the Bible is devoted to that issue; far more is devoted to admonishing us to love others. Again and again. To forgive others. To love God. But that message gets lost in the stream of debates. So many are focusing on it, freaking out as if your view on it determines if you’re going to heaven or not, or that if gay marriage is allowed, it means heterosexual marriage is being torn apart or diminished. That’s just silly. My personal relationship with Jesus, as well as my relationship with my husband, is not threatened by anyone else’s relationship with whoever they love. And I believe that God cares far more about how I treat my fellow human beings than what I think about gay people. Why is this the main issue Christians today think they need to fight for?!? Why not focus on the things that really matter?

World Vision stated it so well in their first statement about it when they said “"Changing the employee conduct policy to allow someone in a same-sex marriage who is a professed believer in Jesus Christ to work for us makes our policy more consistent with our practice on other divisive issues," he said. "It also allows us to treat all of our employees the same way: abstinence outside of marriage, and fidelity within marriage." Bravo! Many denominations and respected Christian leaders are divided on that issue, so they decided it was best to not formally take a side and instead try and unite Christians to work together despite their differences. There are many other issues that are not anywhere close to being the difference between salvation or not. (Imagine their job interviews if it continues like this...”Were you baptized by dunking or sprinkling? Does your church use a rock guitar in their worship service? Yes? Oh, sorry, guess you can’t work here, our policy says you’re not a real Christian, so you’re not fit to distribute food to the hungry.”) World Vision also has stated they will not take a formal stance on things like divorce/remarriage, evolution or female pastors, as it should be...there’s disagreement on those, and Christians on both sides of the issue that both have convincing arguments. They know that they are a company that represents Christianity as a whole, not one particular view of Christianity, and that ultimately, those issues should be discussed at a church level. It’s not like they are God handing down a declaration of what is counted as Christianity. We all like to think that only our denomination is the right one with all the answers, but it's simply not true.

But instead of inspiring unity World Vision was shown that fear of homosexuality outweighs a lot of Christian’s desires to help the poor and hungry. They just couldn’t support an organization that might work alongside those that Jesus himself would probably welcome. I feel like homosexuals are the lepers of today...people who Christians are afraid to touch, afraid to show compassion to for fear of getting “infected.” Sometimes I’m outraged at how so many Christians put “calling out sin” above “love your neighbor.” It’s just Not. As. Important. Telling someone they’re a sinner rarely endears them to Christianity. We all know that already. But I saw a lot of formerly skeptical atheists give a nod to World Vision’s initial decision and how they were impressed at their openness. I bet they’re doubly turned away now, hearing the new decision. How many of those who might have embraced Jesus are now forever hardened against the church because of how they are seeing Christians behave in this situation? We claim to be loving and then we go and abandon an already struggling child because our ideas were challenged. It saddened me greatly hearing World Vision recant something that just yesterday I viewed as a step in the right direction of loving and recognizing our fellow human beings the way we are supposed to as Christians.

I have to restate, this is not a debate about whether being gay is a sin or not. I’m not going there, let’s not debate that. It is the fact that Christians were so fast to immediately drop over 2,000 children that they sponsored just because World Vision said they would not take a hard stance. Church leaders even told their members to pull their funds. That is wrong on every level. We should be ashamed that the world is seeing Christians in that light. If you disagree with the policy that much, fine, at least finish out the year and don’t renew again, go support another charitable organization. But don’t abruptly stop supporting someone who relies on you, in a spoiled fit to prove that you hold the power.

I think I’m going to go sponsor a child now. If you agree with me that Christianity is more than political stances and religious rules, please consider doing the same.

Faith, Gender Identity, and Suicide @DavidOlson11

Back in November, one of our local freeway interchanges was shut down after a man suicided by jumping off the overpass. I recently discovered that man was a transgendered woman, Kaylee Johnson, who also struggled with her faith because of gender identity issues. David Olson's article about Johnson stated:

Johnson had a hard time reconciling her faith in God with her gender identity, after leaving the Mormon faith she grew up with and relied on for support, because she didn’t feel accepted by the church. 

She was stung by rejection from people she loved and whose acceptance she desperately wanted, especially some members of her family, Chambers said.

I didn't know Johnson, so I can't speak to what influenced this final attempt. But as Olson's article states, many transgendered people struggle with faith and consider or attempt suicide. A lot of focus has been on the impact of religion on homosexuality and suicide, as I've written about before. While this awareness is wonderful, anyone familiar with LGBT issues know the T usually gets the least attention. And those falling in the T category are often even more misunderstood than non-heterosexual orientation. Greater misunderstanding=greater persecution.

Regardless of one's beliefs on LGBT issues, I hope all can agree that suicide is tragic and not a desirable outcome. Everyone, especially those of us from faith communities, need to act in ways that prevent such destruction, not contribute to it. People of the Christian faith need to remember that Jesus loved, supported, valued, and spent almost all of his time with the people who were misunderstood, rejected, and devalued. That sort of action positively changed lives, unlike the condemning and criticizing and judging of the Pharisees.

We have the opportunity to literally save people's lives by how we treat them. And even for those who value the next life more than the current one--we can't save someone if they're dead. So please, remember our faith-based priorities when encountering those who are different from and those we don't understand. It could be the difference between life and death. Literally.

I Shouldn't Pay for Their Healthcare... But I Do

I doubt we'll see the end of debates about healthcare reform anytime soon. Interestingly, many of the things being tried now were tried a couple of decades ago, too, from my understanding. Yet having worked in a major medical center for the past five years, I can definitely understand that health care needs major reforming.

Last week, I saw a story in my Facebook feed (supposedly) from an ER physician who was treating some young kid with expensive tattoos and piercings, but with Medicaid (public insurance, for those who don't know). The argument was that if he had enough money for the tattoos, piercings, and cigarettes, we shouldn't have to pay for his health care.

There were so many problems and fallacies with this story and argument that I wanted to write a response. I haven't heard a plan I've loved so far, so this isn't a political statement, but rather an opportunity to flesh out some alternative perspectives.

First of all, I've learned in working with a variety of minors, many will actually give themselves or each other the tattoos or piercings. Others get fancy-looking ones free in trade for a variety of favors. So don't be so quick to assume the kid has money. And there's a lot I could say about the addictive nature of cigarettes that would make just about anyone prioritize buying them over health care.

Ultimately, though, the real question comes to whether we should have to pay for other people's health care. Actually, if you pay taxes and have private insurance, you already pay for other people's health care.

Few people know that most hospitals (at least those with an ER or the equivalent) fall under EMTALA, a law requiring the hospital to treat anyone who walks in if they meet admission criteria, regardless of their ability to pay. The admitting staff cannot ask about insurance or payment until they determine if they will admit the individual. The purpose is that anyone can get help in life-threatening situations, which I believe is good.

Now many hospitals treat huge numbers of people who have no insurance or whose insurance doesn't cover costs. The hospitals still have to operate. So who gets the bill? Those of us with private insurance. Our costs get higher, so our insurance premiums get higher. This is just one part of the skyrocketing cost of healthcare.

And it's not just life threatening situations. People use the ER or hospital for things many people would seek in a traditional outpatient appointment. In the psych hospital, for instance, we would regularly have people admitted because they ran out of medications. Why didn't they get them filled outpatient? Either they didn't have insurance, or more commonly, they couldn't get an appointment. So now an issue that could have a sub-$100 visit up to a few times a month turns into a $1000 a day treatment for 3-5 days. And private insurance holders subsidize this treatment.

This also gets us to the issue of not having enough providers if universal health care is passed. I used to be strongly persuaded by this argument. But then I started realizing what it meant: I have money, so I can have health care; someone else doesn't have money, so they can't have health care. Is that really fair? Or godly?

There's also some fallacies with it. Go back to our individual who couldn't get an outpatient appointment for med refills or therapy. Sure, there is a paucity of providers for public insurance (at least in California). But part of the problem is that the public insurance reimburses providers at such a low rate, they often cannot cover costs. If everyone had insurance that could reimburse at a decent rate, more providers would likely be able to be available. Oh, and don't forget that we still subsidize outpatient visits. Many providers have a certain number of low income or pro bono slots. How do they compensate for the financial loss there? By getting more money from those who can pay.

So don't think you'll start paying for someone else. You already do. And it's a completely ineffective use of that money. If we're going to pay for others' healthcare, let's do it in a way that works and really helps everyone.

A Bored Wreck @christianaudio @caReviewers

One of my biggest personal and professional interests is in finding and encouraging meaning and purpose. Jeff Goins' new book, Wrecked, about finding fulfillment in life sounded interesting. Unfortunately, I really didn't experience this text as providing anything new to the current Christian publishing industry.

The subtitle, When a Broken World Slams into your Comfortable Life, really summarizes the book: Recognizing the need for healing and social justice and the lack of justice makes us "wrecked" and want to change the way we live. First of all, I just don't agree with this application of the term, wrecked. But ultimately, there is a plethora of books and blogs on exactly this topic. I can't say I really heard anything new in this book. Goins is a fine writer, and his tales are compelling, but no more so than any of the other things I've read on this topic.

In fact, this book seemed so redundant, I kept tuning out. I got bored enough that I just didn't finish the book. It's only the second time I didn't finish a book. The other time was because the content disgusted me so much. That was not the case here. There wasn't really anything I would disagree with (except the definition of wrecked). I just didn't experience it providing anything new.

In many ways, I'm glad the evangelical Christian publishing industry is encouraging people to look at and challenge their comfortable lives. But preaching the same message ad naseum isn't helpful.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

The Gospel According to Dickens @christianaudio

I haven't read any of Charles Dickens' original writings since probably middle school. At that point, I know I never really appreciated the beauty of his work and words. I recently listened to christianaudio's version of A Christmas Carol, which is one of their best audiobooks yet. Simon Vance's narration was excellent, with an engaging dramatization.

At a recent Bible study, someone brought up how A Christmas Carol was particularly a message about caring for our neighbors. While most of us have heard the story many times, hearing Dickens' original words really sent the message about the power and importance of loving our neighbor. While God was never explicitly mentioned, the Gospel is written all over this classic.

While it is a short book that can be easily found for free, christian audio is also offering it for free for this month!

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Outliving Your Life @MaxLucado @christianaudio @caReviewers

I haven't read one of Max Lucado's books in a long time, but I get his weekly email devotionals. So when I had the opportunity to review his latest book through a complimentary copy of the audiobook from christianaudio, I jumped at the chance.

Outlive Your Life's subtitle is You Were Made to Make a Difference. Honestly, I didn't catch the connection of the title and subtitle with the content of the book until the very end, but then it all made sense. The basic premise is that our contributions to the world and the Kingdom of God can last long beyond our earthly lives based on caring for others.

The premise and message of the book is excellent. I wouldn't say it's anything remarkably profound. It's very consistent with much of the discussions on missional and social justice work. However, Lucado has a great style that makes ideas down-to-earth and understandable and reasonable to anyone. I loved how he began each chapter with a biblical story or a contemporary story related to breaking down barriers and caring for others. The rest of the chapter interprets these tales, again making them seem like something we all could participate in in some fashion. In fact, his website has links to several practical ways to engage in caring for others. One idea with which I was unfamiliar and really like is microfinance. It's a relatively accessible way to make a significant difference in others' lives (his story about this is powerful).

I also appreciate the prayers with which Lucado ended each of his chapters. It was a nice way of remembering that this work is not done for the building of oneself or for secular ideas of social justice, but as a dedication to Christ.

This celebration of Christ through social justice makes the book uniquely evangelical in a good way. Actually, this was more of the impact for me personally than the message of the book. Again, the ideas are things with which I agree and have heard many times. However, hearing the presentation of the concepts from a conservative evangelical like Lucado is very refreshing.

As readers of my blog know, I have struggled with some of the styles and emphases of evangelicalism in creating an "us-them" sort of ethos. Lucado roundly shuts down that idea. In contrast, he emphasizes that Christ broke down boundaries and worked to include people rather than exclude people. Evangelicalism needs more people like Lucado who hold strong convictions without condemnation.

With regard to the actual audiobook, it was well-produced and well-read. The narrator, Dan Butler, did a nice job showing passion and appropriate reflection. However, like I have said many times, I wished Lucado would have read it himself. Having heard him speak live before, it was odd hearing a very different type of voice reading his words. Also, I listened to most of it with my wife during our trip to and from Fresno to visit her family for Thanksgiving. Butler's voice was a bit too soothing, so we had to turn the audiobook off a couple of times to stay awake (not because of the content! :) ). But it was still a great listen and very encouraging and refreshing, giving me more faith in evangelicalism again!

Christian Humanitarianism @christianaudio @caReviewers

I received two complimentary audiobooks from christianaudio at the same time: Jesus Manifesto (reviewed yesterday) and Humanitarian Jesus by Christian Buckley and Ryan Dobson. I was expecting to like the former more than the latter, but that's exactly the opposite of what happened.

Humanitarian Jesus was much more engaging and legitimately struggling with real-life issues that many Christians are facing today. As being "missional" is one of the hot new things for young Christians, it is important to know what it actually means to be missional.

Social justice is important. So is evangelism. But how do you define each?

That's exactly what this book tackles. The first half of the book is Buckley's argument for finding a delicate balance between both social justice and evangelism (he says both are needed explicitly). And yes, Buckley wrote the whole thing. He says that in the introduction. Dobson helped him get the interviews that comprise the second half. His name probably helps sell copies, but I don't think he was particularly involved.

Buckley is an excellent writer and is definitely on the more conservative end of the missional/social justice spectrum. However, unlike the negative and unfair stereotype of conservatives being unwilling to consider alternatives, Buckley does a great job of looking at all the options when engaging humanitarianism.

This is particularly seen in the second half, in which Buckley interviews a very wide variety of well-known (on the order of Franklin Graham and Tony Campolo) and not-so-well known Christian leaders who also engage in humanitarian work. I found the second half much more interesting and engaging. This is where the reader (or listener) gets to hear from the people who are actually doing the work and how they approach the balance of humanitarianism and evangelism.

The views are on both extremes and everywhere in between. And that is a good thing. It helps the reader/listener really engage all the nuanced issues in the arena of missional living. As Buckley states, the goal of the book is not necessarily to convince people of one perspective or another, but to get people to look at their views again and understand the complexity of the issues. For that, I have a lot of respect. And the book achieves that.

As with other audiobooks, I wish Buckley would have read it himself. The narrator was excellent (one of the best non-author narrators). However, there is something lost when the author does not read his own work, particularly when it comes out of a particular passion.

Church Mistakes

This is an incredibly good article, entitle Seven Mistakes Every Church Should Avoid. I could repeat what is in the article and say more, but the author does it quite nicely and succinctly.

I particularly appreciate #2: Misrepresenting the tithe, #4: Over-emphasizing the role of the pastor, and #7: Conversion-focus instead of disciple-making.

I agree whole-heartedly with all of those. What are your reactions?

Franciscan Benediction

A friend emailed me this benediction as a New Year's prayer. I really like it. So much could be said, but I think I'll leave it. What are your reactions?

May God bless you with DISCOMFORT...at easy answers, half-truths, and superficial relationships, so that you may live deep within your heart.

May God bless you with ANGER...at injustice, oppression, and exploitation of people, so that you may work for justice, freedom and peace.

May God bless you with TEARS...to shed for those who suffer from pain, rejection, starvation and war, so that you may reach out your hand to comfort them and to their their pain into JOY.

And may God bless you with enough FOOLISHNESS...to believe that you can make a difference in this world, so that you DO what others claim cannot be done.

Amen

Social Justice Tithing

Yesterday, I posted a review of Francis Chan's Crazy Love. One of the ways this book has practically impacted and challenged some of my beliefs is the topic of tithing. Readers of my blog know that I have not easily accepted the standard message of tithing.

Chan does not really address tithing directly. He does discuss living modestly and simply in order to be able to give money to others. Should we be living in massive homes while someone else is literally starving? What about a reasonable home and giving several people meals?

I've struggled with giving money to organizations (including churches). That doesn't really feel like giving it to God. It's more about giving it to people. This is a controversial statement and not unilaterally true, but I think it's unfair to say that if we don't give money to a church, then we're not giving our money to God.

However, giving money to organizations that engage in social justice actually is a way of acting out of love to me. So I'm currently redefining tithing in my mind away from giving a predetermined amount to a human-driven organization to giving money for social justice. That seems quite worthwhile.

Do you think that qualifies as "tithe" or is something else?

Another piece of the tithe question is what kind of organizations would qualify as something to tithe to. Does it have to be explicitly Christian? My initial reaction is I don't think so. Does it always have to be for human support, or what about for animals or the environment, beings that truly have no voice and are definitely a part of God's creation? I also initially don't think it has to be for only human support. We need to care for all of God's creation. That's a nice way of giving our money back to God (or acknowledging that we never owned it in the first place).

Avatar of Our Lives

My wife and I saw Avatar this weekend in IMAX 3D (a cool format, although it made me sick being in the 3rd row, and I don't get sick in movies...).

This movie has gotten a lot of excellent press and recommendation from friends. Maybe I was expecting too much (although trying not to) and maybe I started off by being in a bad mood from having to sit so close, but I did not love the movie. The effects were phenomenal, and the story backed them up. But the story at the same time did not wow me. It was rather predictable, and I felt angry through most of it because of the injustices. My wife wants to get it on Blu-Ray, but right now, I'm not sure I even want to see it again because of the anger I felt during the movie.

Maybe the movie did it's job, though. It made me think about injustices in this world. In many ways, Avatar was a sort of avatar of modern life. Media at its best does that. It's one of the things I like about Star Trek: having us engage in moral and ethical dilemmas, but making the context foreign so we're able to see the issues better and not be so resistant to challenging our beliefs.

For those who haven't seen it, you may not want to read more (although none of this will be that much of a spoiler, I don't think). Also, there is another great blog post on Avatar as a metaphor for evangelism, so others are thinking of it in metaphorical terms.

Anyway, back to being ego-centric about my reactions. :) The first strong negative emotion I had was anger. The humans were being driven by money and greed (anger point #1) and then doing very inappropriate things to others while they had absolutely NO right to do this (anger point #2).

One of the strengths of this film versus others is that it let the audience get to know and understand both sides of the conflict. It starts with humans (who the audience has an obvious automatic affiliation). Then it helps us build a bond with the Navi.

So when things get heated, I cared about both sides. It made me sick seeing both sides get killed. And I actually thought it was unfair that most of the soldiers had to die while the leaders (the true corrupt ones) walked away (well, there was one exception). I didn't really hold most of the humans responsible for their actions since they were unaware of the full picture. But those who were exposed to the Navi and the injustice that went on were responsible. And they acted.

How often does that occur for us, though? We often do things without full knowledge of the situation. And we often act incorrectly. That doesn't mean we were not wrong, but should we always be condemned? I'm not sure. Yet we do often condemn others.

The movie also made me sick because it so beautifully and graphically and emotionally showed the tragedy of displacing the Other for our benefit. It made me realize the power of the horror that humanity has committed to so many populations over the millenia.

Again, I think this is a strength of media at its best: Helping us experience the world differently when we are unwilling or cannot see it directly. Basically, media can be an avatar for our lives. And that can be good. So good that I think it can be quite holy. (Not saying this movie was holy, but you get the idea. :) )

Liturgical v. Contemporary Church

As my wife and I moved a few months ago, we have begun looking for a new church community closer to us. In the places we have visited, we went to one that is a pretty traditional contemporary service (nice oxymoron, huh?) and one that is a pretty traditional high church, liturgical service. Both Laci and I have had much more experience in the former, so that feels more comfortable.

However, we noticed some key distinctions between the communities, which led me to think about differences between liturgical and contemporary communities in general. The thing I noticed (which is not an amazing or new insight) is that liturgical communities tend to be more liberal politically and theologically, focusing on communal issues and social justice at large. In contrast, contemporary communities tend to be more conservative politically and theologically, focusing on individual experience and personal responsibility. Now there are obvious exceptions to these rules, but often they do characterize churches as a pattern, I believe.

That got me to wondering why this is the case. And here's my conclusion:

Liturgical churches are by their nature communal. They focus on the whole community, not individual's reactions. Liturgy by its nature is participative. It is also not focused on creating a conversion experience or a deeply moving personal experience. Again, it is focused on the group coming together. As a result, it would make sense that these churches would focus more on the whole community and larger social justice issues.

In contrast, contemporary churches developed out of the Protestant Reformation and a focus on personal relationship with Christ, personal conversion, and personal conviction. The service is therefore focused on moving each individual. Hence, you can get a more performance-driven service that is non-participative, but leads to touching, emotional experiences. As the emerging movement has emphasized, these services have usually lost the participative quality. When that is lost, then it makes sense that politically and theologically they would ignore the social justice issues and instead focus on personal morality and responsibility.

Interestingly, I saw these two blog posts with similar ideas. Maybe I just had my eyes out for these concepts. What do you think about these patterns? Have you seen them? Have you seen a successful mix of the two? That's one of the strengths of the emerging church, I believe: It attempts to merge the strengths of both while cutting out the weaknesses of each.

Euthanasia

Here's a comment I posted on an interesting blog on euthanasia. What say you?

I have to reinforce the "I don't know" comments. I've had two loved ones die through hospice and a third who was on hospice and then improved and got kicked out of hospice (he's still around and doing well). I've also worked with heart failure patients and ALS patients (I'm a therapist).

That's all to say I've totally seen the reasons for euthanasia and talked with people about it. I might pursue it myself if I were in their position.

However, I also value remembering the positive things in life. My wife and I are directing the play "It's a Wonderful Life," and one of the things that emphasizes is that there is still wonderfulness in life despite struggles and pain. Yes, the circumstances are different, but the process is similar.

At what point do we totally ignore the beauty in life? Or do we always need to remind ourselves and others of the beauty we sometimes do not see, ignore, or cannot see?

Biblical Witness to Peacemaking

As many of you know, my dissertation was on faith-based peacemaking, so this document, the Biblical Witness to Peacemaking, is quite interesting to me. I like how they break up so many elements to peace. That's one of the things I think is most important when "evangelizing" peace: It's not just nonviolence. That's a very limited perspective of peace. Rather, peace is better defined as human flourishing and prosocial actions. Anyway, I'll leave it at that for now. :)

Church Footprints

I was reading an article in Church Executive magazine last night about special events churches host, particular with big name people. One church administrator said about her church, "The church always had a big footprint in [big name city]." She was referring to primarily the fact that the church always had a booth at community events and that their worship band went to car shows regularly, playing both sacred and secular music.

That's when I really understand the consumer nature of church. That's not leaving a footprint in a city. That's simply good advertising and making your presence known. A footprint would be making an impact, changing people's lives.

However, I have realized that many evangelical churches take the view of this church--we just need to reach the unchurched and unsaved. Meaning we just need to get them to accept Jesus.

Ultimately, this is selling God, not much more, and it doesn't change people's lives.

Discipleship and spiritual formation change people's lives. Connecting them with God is the first step, but simply selling someone God isn't the same thing as connecting them with God. As the devotional I copied below from John Eldredge and Ransomed Heart explains, we need to connect to the heart of God.

When we sell God, we are simply selling a principle. In many ways, that can separate others (and us) even farther from God's heart and therefore God Himself.

Contrast that with churches that may not do traditional explicit evangelism, but really touch people's lives deeply. Those people are introduced to the heart of God incarnationally. We are able to see God's love working through us AND experience God's love through others. When someone makes a commitment through that, my guess is it's a lot more lasting and much deeper.

THAT'S a footprint, not just well-placed salesmanship. How can you leave a footprint in your community?

---

With All Your Heart
02/02/2009

---

The heart is the connecting point, the meeting place between any two persons. The kind of deep soul intimacy we crave with God and with others can be experienced only from the heart. I know a man who took his daughter to dinner; she was surprised, delighted. For years she had been hoping he would pursue her. When they had been seated, he pulled out his Day Timer and began to review the goals he had set for her that year. “I wanted to burst into tears and run out of the restaurant,” she said. We don’t want to be someone’s project; we want to be the desire of their heart. Gerald May laments, “By worshiping efficiency, the human race has achieved the highest level of efficiency in history, but how much have we grown in love?”

We’ve done the same to our relationship with God. Christians have spent their whole lives mastering all sorts of principles, done their duty, carried on the programs of their church . . . and never known God intimately, heart to heart. The point is not an efficient life of activity—the point is intimacy with God. “You will find me,” God says, “when you seek me with all your heart” (Jer. 29:13). As Oswald Chambers said, “So that is what faith is—God perceived by the heart.”

What more can be said, what greater case could be made than this: to find God, you must look with all your heart. To remain present to God, you must remain present to your heart. To hear his voice, you must listen with your heart. To love him, you must love with all your heart. You cannot be the person God meant you to be, and you cannot live the life he meant you to live, unless you live from the heart.

(Waking the Dead , 48–49)

---

To subscribe to this email, create a profile at www.ransomedheart.com/myprofile
See also the Ransomed Heart Podcast at www.ransomedheart.com/podcast