Welcome to 2017, may it be unlike 2016! However, the decisions of 2016 suggests that 2017 will be dangerously different, and the eventual outcome will depend on our future individual and collective choices. On the last day of 2016 my family marked this arbitrary boundary in time by hiking up the mountain to watch the last sunset, and then going home to watch Tutankhamun (there’s no logic there, I know). On the way down the mountain, as we walked in the dark with our head torches, scratched by thorn bushes and stumbling over boulders, the future lives of a scorpion (see picture) and I were separated by only a few centimeters. Since I was hiking in sandals (having destroyed my boots on our pre-Christmas trip), the outcome could have been highly problematic for one of us if I had decided to place my foot slightly differently. Consequences are often hyper-sensitive to small changes in decisions. For example, if last year is anything to go by, we now have "life with Trump" and Brexit partly because a small percentage of people presumed their protest vote would not really influence the outcome. There’s lots of instances in life like this; small differences in our moment of choice give rise to big consequences, flipping us into an alternate future. Therein lies the rub: very often the small differences are simply because we fear to face a fact, and so we create our own preferred "truth" on which to base the decision. A classic example is syncretism – which is the mixing and melding of different elements of spirituality to construct a more "acceptable" composite product - a modern day paganism for a post-Christian world. For example, Mark Zuckerburg (yes, that one) has apparently “found religion” and is doing just this. From the report it sounds like he’s constructing a package that mixes his Jewish heritage with strands of Buddhism along with a good dose of humanism (where do they teach logic now days?). It is actually very typical of today's western spirituality. This is, I suggest, largely because of a fear of uncomfortable conclusions that arise when we stick to the facts. Just look at climate change: in the US (and hardly anywhere else) the fear of the consequences arising from a logical conclusion of the facts (especially that personal lifestyles and corporate special interests will be deeply impacted) drives half the USA population (and most of the Republicans) into illogical and indefensible denial. I have a number of friends who are really good people, nice people (they’re my friends, after all). They’re mostly intelligent, thoughtful, courageously facing uncomfortable conclusions in many areas, yet who are fearful in cases when it comes to issues that carry deep personal cost, and then many of them begin to deny that "scorpions have tails". There’s safety in relativism, in cherry-picking the truths we like (even though we don't always live by them much). When faced by an uncomfortable conclusion, we are often quick to use the excuse of mystery: "since I don’t know it all, what seems apparent could really be something else, so I don't need to act”. This attitude to mystery quickly leads to ideas such the popular one that “we might be living in a computer simulation". Raising such possibilities quickly gives an out to all sorts of uncomfortable conclusions about right and wrong, duty, ethics, and even God. But simply because I can postulate something, does not mean there is any credibility to the idea. Perhaps the starting point is accepting this reality. a) I will wake up in the morning and have to engage with life and make choices, and for this I need a framework to guide my choices. b) All I have to go on is the evidence of facts (as best I can know them), my experiences and that of others, logic, and my brain, which together will hopefully combine to give some measure of wisdom. However, we tend to want to avoid the reality that incomplete evidence is nonetheless evidence, and cannot be ignored at will and be supplanted by more attractive speculation. For example, I have NO evidence that I’m an object in a giant computer simulation, but I have LOTS of evidence that suggests I am alive. I could be wrong, but is it more logical to act on a hypothetical possibility versus an evidence-based probability? Until the former accumulates evidence, should I not work on the basis of the latter? The thing about evidence is that it demands to be interpreted, yet if we are true to logic we may not like the answer. So we conveniently ignore or twist the evidence. I have one friend who believes in the historicity of Jesus, and in the wisdom of some of what he said (conveniently ignoring how this contradicts the uncomfortable conclusions of other things he said). This is no more or less than cherry picking, syncretism, and creating one's own truth to avoid an uncomfortable conclusion. I'm not going to argue here the case for Christ, others far more competent than I have done that. All I am saying is that the discomfort of a conclusion to which a chain of logic leads is no grounds for discarding the conclusion. Instead, it is a reason to re-examine the lines of logic - the multiple lines of evidence - to honestly consider the evidence of probability versus the speculation of possibility. It's Plato's cave all over again. This 2017, will we continue to look at the shadows on the wall, and follow a conjecture that never leads anywhere new? Or follow the conjecture that always leads to the one reality, however uncomfortable it may be?
0 Comments
This entry winds together three different thoughts about choice and consequence.
First about the three thoughts: 1. I spent the four nights before Christmas traveling on, in and over a river at the bottom of a steep sided canyon. Isolated in the wilderness and with no easy escape we ran rapids and waterfalls between car-sized boulders, interspersed by floating over deep idyllic pools of crystal clear mountain water between between tall vertical walls of rock. We averaged a speed less than a half a kilometer per hour - the nature of the terrain prevented anything faster. At times it was hard going, while also being surreal, idyllic and peaceful. By the end of each day we would pull over to a convenient spot on the bank, dry our waterlogged bodies, and sleep under the stars, tired and awed. An efficient means of travel? Not at all. As an exercise in maximizing the value of our body's energy, the trip was surely a failure. If you traveled on higher ground you could have walked the entire distance in less than a day. But the intention was never energy efficiency, but rather energy efficacy: applying our energy to accomplish a purpose that could not be measured simply by the work done. And so the trip was massively energy efficacious because it achieved a relaxation of mind and spirit, developed relationships, and gave a new sense of perspective. 2. There is always a dividing line, even when everything appears gray. What we call gray is really only our inability to recognize a boundary. Take a simple number example. Two numbers, 0.9999 and 1.0001, are separated by a tiny amount. Yet if you square each number again and again, they rapidly and inevitably diverge, one headed toward zero and the other toward infinity. What began as a seemingly infinitesimal difference was really total separation divided by an invisible boundary. Some boundaries are simple to understand, some we might never understand even though they seem simple (e.g. Mandlebrot). And so it is with morals, ethics, values, and choices - infinitesimal differences, if followed to their logical conclusion, actually lead to polar opposites, complete separation into incompatible sets. It might be called the slippery slope: all great good and evil begins with a small seemingly innocuous choice about a minor premise. Our lives began on a boundary, and as we grow we diverge to one side or another. Some do so rapidly while some may strive to hover indecisively with one foot on either side. But in the end we all eventually fall to a side of life's boundaries. 3. Passivity is not an option. Even to be passive is an act of choice, so why not make a choice that is proactive? The year 2016, perhaps more than any other year in my life, has shaken the covers off the facade that all is progressing well. In personal life, church life, city life, national life, globally ... all has been shaken to one degree or another ... and in 2017 we must all make a choice about how we expend our finite energy to move ahead. The very fabric of society, community, and the work is being ever further transformed through technology, virtualization, and loss of privacy. A new framework is being built on the fragile skeleton of a globalized communication and commerce network, steered by relativism and self interest. As individuals we face a choice. We can follow the route of efficiency and ease but at the expense of personal values (and which side of the boundary does that lead to?). Or we can choose to expend energy on what is efficacious, yet how is efficacy determined? I've heard it put this way: we can feel four types of emotional responses as we face new challenges. We can delude ourselves that all will return to normal and we need only wait, that the perturbations we see are merely short lived. Or we can numb ourselves, shut down emotionally, stick our head in the sand and suppress any outrage at post-truth lies and the disrespect of people. Else we can become deeply cynical and say "to hell with it all, it couldn't get any worse". Alternatively, one can be depressed, surrendered to a sense of helplessness and powerlessness against a flood of events. Each of these emotional responses is understandable, but each can be a trap that requires a choice to escape. Now, winding these three thoughts together. Einstein said "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead —his eyes are closed." How we choose to expend our energy, recognize boundaries that lead to separate destinations, and plot a path to move ahead, these are all predicated on open eyes that gaze on the mysterious. I'll point to two examples that currently occupy my thoughts. First, I see a society burdened by the conflict of contested value systems. The world has subscribes to a post-truth normality that is leading to ever increasing polarization and self-interest. I am preoccupied by questions of why, where is the meaning, what defines these values. And in response I can choose to submit to further being abused by the iniquities of the powerful, or else say that based on my understanding of the evidence of my life, I choose to examine, believe, live and act according to the values that I conclude to be Truth. Second, in my eyes Truth is embodied in the understanding that I am more than atoms, that I am a created spirit. All my reason and logic tells me that the full understanding of this nature is bound up in Christ. Yet I see the the institutions of Christianity blindly choosing efficiency over efficacy (they've really lost the plot), unable to see the dividing line between purpose and preservation, inactive in the face of overwhelming threats to Truth, focused on sheltering a passive and dis-empowered people while unable (or unwilling) to adapt to engage a transformed society. Combining these two examples, my faith (for all "facts" are ultimately faith based on evidence), I believe I need to seek new expressions of Truth to build relationship in this ever increasingly divided world. Depressing? Not really. Concerning? Deeply so. Daunting? Exceptionally. Exciting? Definitely. This is one of those posts that in the years to come I might consider fundamentally wrong. Le roi est mort, vive le roi! "The King is dead, long live the king" was first used with the accession to the French throne by Charles VII in 1422. It's a phrase that has passed into our common lingo ... simply substitute "king" with any other noun. Is the classic expression of church dead? Has succession been passed on, is succession beginning? And if so, passed or passing on to what? Has the dominance of yesteryear's Christian institutions already been replaced by today's relativism and post-truth post-christianity ... a post-postmodernity? Or is it merely that the form of the church is being reconstructed by those who seek to respond to a world of ultimate connectivity and isolation; an increasingly virtualized, globalized, and vulnerable society. Is God in this change, driving this change? Is God walking ahead, waiting for us to follow, or is he standing way back elsewhere calling "Stop, come back" (and come back to what)? I don't see a whole lot of God in much of the present institutionalized church. If anything, I see much of the institutional church's energy focused on maintaining traditions that have become barriers to the outside world, while alienating those of their own leaders who desire to reach into culture. In this the church increasingly loses both relevance and authority to speak to modern issues. The visible face of Christianity has historically undergone many fundamental changes while the core theology remained secure. From it's beginning as a radical, persecuted, and Spirit filled movement into a sanctioned and structured national religion, from suffocating legalism into an age of reformation, from bloody inquisition to a freedom in revival. My own lived experience is mild in comparison, going from an indoctrination of (charismatic) evangelicalism to ... well, I'm not sure what yet. My theology has not changed, how I walk is changing. Is the global face of Christianity in the middle of another transition? It's always hard to tell when one is in the midst of the situation, because then perspective is hard to find.
We are taught a paradox that we have only ourselves to rely on, even though our desperate desire is for community. On one hand individuals are encouraged to look inward in order to find an impossible strength, to fight for self and win. At the same time we see the rise of atheist church services alongside a dilution of orthodoxy, or a regression into a mysticism of labyrinths and halucinogenic substitutes, or religious institutions trying to be "seeker friendly". In the process this removes any threat from Truth while creating a perception of comfort in community.
Is (western) society in "its decline-and-fall stage, its Caligula stage, its Donald Trump stage" (and is the east rapidly following)? If so then "this isn’t just an issue for political and financial [or religious] elites. It’s also a problem for the ‘experts’ who crawl around after these elites, massaging their egos and defending their interests." This quote, made in relation to science and climate change, applies equally to the institutional church, and to those of it's formal and informal leadership. Think about that for a moment. We live in a world of multiple contradictory 'truths' that the institutional church is trying to mediate into a consensus - and it is failing hopelessly in this impossible quest to find a common home for monogamy alongside polyamorism, hetero-sexual marriage alongside LGBT????, relativism alongside orthodoxy, and a competative hunt for membership while supporting a virtualized faith of disengagement. This impossibility stands against the uncomfortable reality that we live with an incomplete understanding of truth (but truth nonetheless) and an irreducible uncertainty which used to be called faith. If God is changing things around, then what is he changing them to? For when a house is being renovated it is a hard place to inhabit, yet inhabit it we must. But if a new house is being built, one can slowly and pragmatically relocate one's abode while continuing to function. What then is this new "church" in our evolving society, if indeed a new church is emerging? Truth is truth, whether one likes it or not. Truth does not change; only ones perceptions of truth. The truth is that we are relational, with God and with one another. It is our expression of truth that changes, and must change if we are to engage with the world, because expression is communication, and communication is the heart of community. If the expression fails to communicate, we lose community. The world desires community, for it has been largely lost. And the world hungers for spirituality, for they know that what we touch is never enough. Maybe in 10 years time (if I am alive) I can revisit these thoughts, and with the wisdom of hindsight see then what I only dimly sense now. For now I do not see a future for orthodox faith within the inertia of most current church expressions. Not when orthodoxy necessitates going into the world. I know of few church leaders who, after a short time in leadership, can still really comprehend, empathise with, and have compassion for the realities of secular life. Secular life is so enourmously different from religious institutional cultures, that the future priests and ministers of this age need to come from the streets. Next steps: find sustainable community conversation while I (we) search for God's footprints to follow as he walks ahead into the world.
A requiem for the institutional church?
|
Why?
Probably the best therapy is to express yourself. Why do you think psychiatrists make you lie on the couch and talk, while all they do is murmur "hmmm", "uhuh", or "go on"? Archives
May 2017
|