Tuesday, January 6, 2015

I recently posted an article by John Burke that I've become somewhat passion about.  It's titled "When Two Lesbians Walk into a Church Seeking Trouble."  Here is the link: http://shar.es/1HjFLZ  
But my passion is not so much on this one particular issue alone as it is in our ability and willingness to engage in healthy dialogue around some of the challenges we face in church culture, and in that process we become better equipped to navigate some of the fundamental shifts that are occurring in our world today.  I previously posted some introductory "rules of engagement" that I hope will facilitate discussion that is constructive and informing.  Please note what is highlighted in red.

I recently posted a blog by an author I respect who was offering an alternative view on a sensitive issue.  I realized that the venue I chose to post this article was not appropriate and so I removed it.  But that didn't or doesn't mean that I don't want to talk about the "tough stuff".  Rather,  I realized that my blog may be a more appropriate place than Facebook for some constructive "wrestling". I believe we have an opportunity to learn from each other and listen to Holy Spirit together about some of the shifting paradigms in our culture that do matter, and how to navigate them in a way that fosters growth without compromising truth.  And that the outcome of our dialogue is not necessarily agreement but an openness and willingness to learn and be teachable. Incidentally, I will not partner with a spirit of fear nor will I receive any false accusations that "Mike sold out to compromise" just because I want to talk about what I believe are important topics relevant to Kingdom Life and Mission.

I want to give you a recent example but let me first "set the record straight" about my current position on this issue so that I don't "trigger" a reaction from some of my friends. 

I recently asked Holy Spirit about whether I should vote for marriage equality and He said "NO".  But I didn't hear him say that my "NO" was supposed to be everybody else's "NO".  Frankly, I've found some of the arguments for marriage equality to be quite intellectually challenging, even from a "non-affirming" biblical standpoint.  But I unequivocally heard (in the Spirit) "No" and I was drawn to Isaiah 55 ("my ways are not your ways...my ways are ""higher"" than your ways).

Having said that, I had some great dialogue with a friend about this issue at Saint Arbucks recently.  We didn't agree with each other in the end but I tried to follow the 4 points I previously posted (January 2nd) for engaging in critical commentary.  Guess what?  We learned a lot from each other, grew in the process and we still have a great friendship.  I guess that's my point. We were taught early on to "disconnect" from people who we disagreed with us ("Come out from among them and be ye separate....").  I now believe that was a mistake.
Jesus talked extensively in John's gospel about truth, and how we come to know truth, which we believe is ultimately found in the person of Jesus Christ.  Truth is found or revealed to us in the context of our relationship with Jesus, by the Holy Spirit. "I" believe the "whole of Scripture" reveals that truth must be known experientially, not just propositionally.  We have reduced truth in western culture to knowing doctrines, dogmas and creeds.  And by the way, I believe in the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds.  But we come to "know" truth by the Spirit.  We also know that "what" we know "by the Spirit" will not conflict with or violate proper hermeneutics. These points are relevant to this conversation because what is shifting for many of us (IMHO) is our understanding of truth.  I heard someone say, "God will never contradict His Word, but He may contradict YOUR UNDERSTANDING of His Word."  Because we believe revelation is progressive (that is, our understand of truth is developmental and ongoing), we know there is "the final word" and then "the word after that."   I love this short video by New Testament Scholar N.T. Wright:

In conclusion, I spent 20 years in ministry congratulating myself in "being right".  One of my mentors looked at me one morning during breakfast in India and said, "Oh, yea Mike, I remember when I was 31 years old, I knew everything too!".  Yikes!!!!

So I'll end with that for now.  Muchas Gracias!!!

Thursday, January 1, 2015

In Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking, Daniel Dennett offers what he calls “the best antidote [for the] tendency to caricature one’s opponent”: a list of rules formulated decades ago by the legendary social psychologist and game theorist Anatol Rapoport, best-known for originating the famous tit-of-tat strategy of game theory. Dennett synthesizes the steps:
How to compose a successful critical commentary:
  1. You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.
  2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
  3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
  4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
If only the same code of conduct could be applied to critical commentary online, particularly to the indelible inferno of comments.
But rather than a naively utopian, Pollyannaish approach to debate, Dennett points out this is actually a sound psychological strategy that accomplishes one key thing: It transforms your opponent into a more receptive audience for your criticism or dissent, which in turn helps advance the discussion.