The most recent newsletter from Emergent Village featured an interesting article about a soup kitchen. I loved the focus on St. Francis Inn's mission statement that emphasizes relationship. It relates to what I said a couple of weeks ago about social work and change. This article reaffirmed my belief that relationships heal.
I hope you enjoy the read. And the colloquial names for St. Francis are just hilarious! :)
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Propositional Policy
Okay, I don't really know if those two words go together appropriately, but it sounds cool, right? ;)
I recently received this daily devotional email from Ransomed Heart, which can further the discussion about policy. There is a lot that could be discussed from the email, I'm going to stick with the topic from yesterday: policy.
I believe policy is derived from a propositional approach to life. Make enough propositions and water down life to those propositions, and morality and life can be easily dictated by policy. I'm not going to say that the propositions are necessarily wrong. However, focusing only on them reduces life (and the Gospel) to something too simplistic. It doesn't allow the mystery and journey of life. That's where we find God.
I recently received this daily devotional email from Ransomed Heart, which can further the discussion about policy. There is a lot that could be discussed from the email, I'm going to stick with the topic from yesterday: policy.
I believe policy is derived from a propositional approach to life. Make enough propositions and water down life to those propositions, and morality and life can be easily dictated by policy. I'm not going to say that the propositions are necessarily wrong. However, focusing only on them reduces life (and the Gospel) to something too simplistic. It doesn't allow the mystery and journey of life. That's where we find God.
A “Propositional” Christianity
07/03/2008
07/03/2008
We have lived for so long with a “propositional” approach to Christianity, we have nearly lost its true meaning. As Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen says,
Much of it hinges on your view of scripture. Are you playing proof-text poker with Genesis plus the Gospels and Paul’s epistles, with everything else just sort of a big mystery in between—except maybe Psalms and Proverbs, which you use devotionally? Or do you see scripture as being a cosmic drama—creation, fall, redemption, future hope—dramatic narratives that you can apply to all areas of life? (Prism interview)
For centuries prior to our Modern Era, the church viewed the gospel as a Romance, a cosmic drama whose themes permeated our own stories and drew together all the random scenes in a redemptive wholeness. But our rationalistic approach to life, which has dominated Western culture for hundreds of years, has stripped us of that, leaving a faith that is barely more than mere fact-telling. Modern evangelicalism reads like an IRS 1040 form: It’s true, all the data is there, but it doesn’t take your breath away. As British theologian Alister McGrath warns, the Bible is not primarily a doctrinal sourcebook: “To reduce revelation to principles or concepts is to suppress the element of mystery, holiness and wonder to God’s self-disclosure. ‘First principles’ may enlighten and inform; they do not force us to our knees in reverence and awe, as with Moses at the burning bush, or the disciples in the presence of the risen Christ” (A Passion for Truth).
(The Sacred Romance , 45)
To subscribe to this email, create a profile at www.ransomedheart.com/myprofile
See also the Ransomed Heart Podcast at www.ransomedheart.com/podcast
Friday, July 4, 2008
Policy
I think part of the problems with symptoms is that we don't trust our or others' hearts. We don't believe that God really transforms and purifies hearts when we accept Him. Ransomed Heart's ministry is focused on this point.About a year ago, I listened to a great conversation between some of the leaders of Ransomed Heart. Unfortunately, I can't find it now, so I can't reference it or quote it directly. In any case, one of the men made a comment that policy is created because of this fear of people's hearts. That has stuck with me for a long time. As I have seen more and more policies at work in more organizations, I have realized how true this is and how damaging it is. (There is a similar statement on Ransomed Heart's website under the What We Most Desperately Need section.)
Policy can be helpful to standardize procedures and ensure safety. However, policy is usually taken to the extreme to prevent any risk. As John Eldredge often states, no risk also means no life and no growth. In general, I believe policy is unhealthy and causes more problems than it attempts to prevent. A lot more can be said on this, and again, I do understand the need for policy in some circumstances, but there has to be a better way to create safety.
The implications of this can be seen in politics, organizations, businesses, and THE CHURCH.
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." --Thomas Jefferson
Happy Independence Day!!
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Symptoms
Yesterday, I talked about my frustrations with the symptom focus of the new hands-free law in California. Today, I want to expand the need to not focus on symptoms.
So one of my struggles in my field (psychology), particularly with the more medicalized aspects, is the over focus on symptomatology rather than the root of the problem (or strengths, gasp). I have found psychiatry (the medical part of the field) tends to focus only on the treatment of symptoms, with little concern for the persistent presence of the actual disorder (slight hyperbole and separating symptoms from disorder is difficult and another discussion). My hyperbolic bias would be to ignore the symptoms and treat the underlying problem. Qualifying this, symptoms must be addressed. Anyone who has had a urinary tract infection would probably be excited that antibacterial pills are treating the underlying problem, but also want something to treat the pain now. The problem is that in the medical field, the symptoms are the primary focus.
The same is true in the Church. We look at people's behaviors and just want them changed. When someone looks holier, then they must have had some powerful influence from the Holy Spirit. And if someone is struggling with some behaviors, then they need to get closer to God. While I would agree there are correlations between relationship with God and behavioral holiness, this is not a 1:1 ratio. We struggle through life and various circumstances, no matter how close we are to God.
We need to qualify the holiness movement with remembering Jesus' words about the inside and outside of the cup. It's a lot more important to have the inside clean than the outside. It's more important to have a sinful-looking person who is close to God than a holy-looking person who doesn't know God from a doorknob.
This is hard to do because a person's relationship with God, the mind, and the existence of a medical problem without symptoms cannot be measured. So we focus on what we can point to, which can be helpful. We have major problems, though, when we reify the symptoms as the problems themselves.
So one of my struggles in my field (psychology), particularly with the more medicalized aspects, is the over focus on symptomatology rather than the root of the problem (or strengths, gasp). I have found psychiatry (the medical part of the field) tends to focus only on the treatment of symptoms, with little concern for the persistent presence of the actual disorder (slight hyperbole and separating symptoms from disorder is difficult and another discussion). My hyperbolic bias would be to ignore the symptoms and treat the underlying problem. Qualifying this, symptoms must be addressed. Anyone who has had a urinary tract infection would probably be excited that antibacterial pills are treating the underlying problem, but also want something to treat the pain now. The problem is that in the medical field, the symptoms are the primary focus.
The same is true in the Church. We look at people's behaviors and just want them changed. When someone looks holier, then they must have had some powerful influence from the Holy Spirit. And if someone is struggling with some behaviors, then they need to get closer to God. While I would agree there are correlations between relationship with God and behavioral holiness, this is not a 1:1 ratio. We struggle through life and various circumstances, no matter how close we are to God.
We need to qualify the holiness movement with remembering Jesus' words about the inside and outside of the cup. It's a lot more important to have the inside clean than the outside. It's more important to have a sinful-looking person who is close to God than a holy-looking person who doesn't know God from a doorknob.
This is hard to do because a person's relationship with God, the mind, and the existence of a medical problem without symptoms cannot be measured. So we focus on what we can point to, which can be helpful. We have major problems, though, when we reify the symptoms as the problems themselves.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
New Things
This post by Dan Kimball illustrates some of the ideas I had about technology in a different light--music. We are scared of change, and anything new must be bad. Until we get used to it, then it's good...
Hands-free Silliness
Well, those of us in California have now been under the new hands-free driving law for over 24 hours. This is a nice reference from the DMV about the law. While I completely support the use of hands-free devices (I've been using them since I had my first cell phone), I really think it's a silly law overall.
Okay, I might be overstating my position a bit, but this law frustrates me because it shows the focus on superficial fixes to situations. Yes, driving while talking causes accidents, but forcing someone to use a hands-free device won't stop the accidents. Further, this law does not outlaw texting or other uses of a cell phone. You can stare at your phone and use both hands to text, ignoring the road completely, but if you hold your phone to your ear while watching the road, you're in violation of the law. I'm not understanding that.
Further, I think cell phones are not the biggest distractions. Ever ridden with a bunch of kids (or teenagers)? Gasp. Ever sung showtunes at the top of your lungs as you're driving down the road? You are transported to another place entirely. And that's not even talking about food. Two girls from my hometown died when one choked while eating and driving...
Try and outlaw any of these. We're too comfortable with them. We like them too much. But something new, well, that we can blame the problems on.
We do that a lot in society. We go for the quick fix, but it's too often a band-aid, not a true solution. This is like my comments on throwing money at social problems. We do something to make ourselves feel better, but it's really not doing much.
And we cannot scapegoat technology. It may augment or show us problems in a new way, but they are deeper problems than just the technology.
The Church needs to remember this, too, because churches often either over embrace or over reject technology just because it's technology. Now, I love technology, but technology for technology's sake ain't good. We need to find purpose and meaning in what we do. Let's look at our problems, the width and depth of the problems, not just the symptoms and examine what we can do at a soul change level, not a behavior change level...
Okay, I might be overstating my position a bit, but this law frustrates me because it shows the focus on superficial fixes to situations. Yes, driving while talking causes accidents, but forcing someone to use a hands-free device won't stop the accidents. Further, this law does not outlaw texting or other uses of a cell phone. You can stare at your phone and use both hands to text, ignoring the road completely, but if you hold your phone to your ear while watching the road, you're in violation of the law. I'm not understanding that.
Further, I think cell phones are not the biggest distractions. Ever ridden with a bunch of kids (or teenagers)? Gasp. Ever sung showtunes at the top of your lungs as you're driving down the road? You are transported to another place entirely. And that's not even talking about food. Two girls from my hometown died when one choked while eating and driving...
Try and outlaw any of these. We're too comfortable with them. We like them too much. But something new, well, that we can blame the problems on.
We do that a lot in society. We go for the quick fix, but it's too often a band-aid, not a true solution. This is like my comments on throwing money at social problems. We do something to make ourselves feel better, but it's really not doing much.
And we cannot scapegoat technology. It may augment or show us problems in a new way, but they are deeper problems than just the technology.
The Church needs to remember this, too, because churches often either over embrace or over reject technology just because it's technology. Now, I love technology, but technology for technology's sake ain't good. We need to find purpose and meaning in what we do. Let's look at our problems, the width and depth of the problems, not just the symptoms and examine what we can do at a soul change level, not a behavior change level...
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Taboo: Suicide
Nice happy title, right? :) Being in the field I'm in, I've been educated about suicide more than the average person, which also means I get annoyed more than the average person about misperceptions about suicide.
Suicide is a major taboo, even though many inroads have been gained over the years. An excellent example has been Dr. Robert H. Schuller's response to his friend's suicide a few years ago. Traditionally, Christianity has stated that suicide means a straight line to Hell. Schuller has nicely reframed it as a "cancer of the mind," providing a new way of looking at a horrible situation that gives us a new way to look at our theology. I could say more about this, but it is an interesting topic to struggle with, and I encourage everyone to do so.
I've noticed two in particular that have irritated me a lot. They often happen in the media, so they may not be representative of the general population, but still:
1. Did he/she leave a note?
This is often asked from a skeptical loved one who cannot believe the individual committed suicide. The emotions are fair enough, as is the desire to find any way of debunking the possibility that the death was by suicide. However, most people do not leave suicide notes. Some do, but as satirized in Analyze This, such notes are not definitive of suicide. The presence or absence of a suicide note does not give absolute proof of suicide.
2. But he/she wasn't depressed!
It's amazing how well people can hide depression (it doesn't always look like sadness). But beyond that, suicide is not always caused by depression. Depression is a major cause, but there are many reasons a person may commit or attempt suicide. Sometimes death is even accidental. Some of the other mental illness-related causes of suicide are a manic episode (for instance, a man believes he can fly and so jumps of a freeway overpass to his death--it's suicide, but he wasn't depressed). During a psychotic episode, people can also commit suicide, again for a variety of reasons.
There are volumes and volumes of work on suicide, so if you are interested, do some research. But in any case, please don't assume someone who committed suicide was depressed and left a note. It's a LOT more complicated than that.
If you or someone you know is contemplating suicide, please seek help right away. New Hope is an excellent resource. They can be reached online at that link or by phone at (714) NEW-HOPE or (714) 639-4673.
Suicide is a major taboo, even though many inroads have been gained over the years. An excellent example has been Dr. Robert H. Schuller's response to his friend's suicide a few years ago. Traditionally, Christianity has stated that suicide means a straight line to Hell. Schuller has nicely reframed it as a "cancer of the mind," providing a new way of looking at a horrible situation that gives us a new way to look at our theology. I could say more about this, but it is an interesting topic to struggle with, and I encourage everyone to do so.
I've noticed two in particular that have irritated me a lot. They often happen in the media, so they may not be representative of the general population, but still:
1. Did he/she leave a note?
This is often asked from a skeptical loved one who cannot believe the individual committed suicide. The emotions are fair enough, as is the desire to find any way of debunking the possibility that the death was by suicide. However, most people do not leave suicide notes. Some do, but as satirized in Analyze This, such notes are not definitive of suicide. The presence or absence of a suicide note does not give absolute proof of suicide.
2. But he/she wasn't depressed!
It's amazing how well people can hide depression (it doesn't always look like sadness). But beyond that, suicide is not always caused by depression. Depression is a major cause, but there are many reasons a person may commit or attempt suicide. Sometimes death is even accidental. Some of the other mental illness-related causes of suicide are a manic episode (for instance, a man believes he can fly and so jumps of a freeway overpass to his death--it's suicide, but he wasn't depressed). During a psychotic episode, people can also commit suicide, again for a variety of reasons.
There are volumes and volumes of work on suicide, so if you are interested, do some research. But in any case, please don't assume someone who committed suicide was depressed and left a note. It's a LOT more complicated than that.
If you or someone you know is contemplating suicide, please seek help right away. New Hope is an excellent resource. They can be reached online at that link or by phone at (714) NEW-HOPE or (714) 639-4673.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)