A Dearth of Dissent

George November 4, 2019 Quarantine Reflections 2 Comments

In the midst of deep division, political, religious and cultural chaos, is it possible that we are experiencing a dearth of dissent? On its face, such a suggestion seems absurd. Dissent dominates. Success is presumed to be achieved by the loudest voice.

Recently reading , “Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior “ by Ori & Rom Brahman , Chapter 8 “Dissenting Justice” , I was provoked to conclude the following:

A disturbing reality in our divisive, contentiousness culture is the paradox of a dearth of dissent in an ocean of dissension.

In our current culture, dissent, is largely defined protest or rebellion, characterized by inflammatory language and with a bent to violence. In an ironic twist, reasoned voices of dissent are met with dissent to their dissent as they are shouted down and driven from podiums. No matter which ideology is represented, groups resist and drive out opposition. Group conformity is incredibly strong, and it depends on unanimity for its power. Inherently, dissent is a threat to unanimity. My “free speech” is protected while the voice of a dissenter is fair game for censure-ship. What results is a self-destructive maelstrom.

“…homogeneous communities march toward the extremes…Like-minded groups create a kind of self-propelled, self-reinforcing loop.

Dissent is persona non grata.

I am hard pressed to identify any segment of our society which has not made dissent, to some extent, unwelcome. Politics, religion, science, technology, the 4th estate, social media, even academia, supposedly the bastion of free thinking, are not exempt.

Reading, “The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior” , Chapter 8 “Dissenting Justice”, there appears to be, at least, one notable exception to the dearth of dissent, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). Although, I had a vague idea of dissent as it relates to SCOTUS, I did not realize the how essential it is to the process of justice at SCOTUS.

Breyer explained how the role of the blocker [dissenter] serves a necessary function in the Supreme Court: “If somebody is going to write a dissent… they have a point, they have some kind of point they’re trying to make. Quite often the opinion [of the majority] is changed somewhat in response to comments and opinions [of the dissenters]. Occasionally—maybe once or twice a year—the whole Court shifts.” Even when dissenters don’t have enough votes to change the Court’s opinion, they still affect the process. “It makes the other person take account of the point. They have to answer it or they have to take it into account,” Breyer said.

It’s easy to understand the desire to present a unified front. But as Breyer pointed out, the end result—in this case, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion—is actually improved by dissent. “The thing about writing a dissent,” Breyer reflected, “is it’s actually a pain in the neck for the person who is writing the [majority] opinion… and suddenly [has] to deal with this dissent.” The majority has to revise its opinion in response to points raised by the dissenters, then the dissenters rebut, and on and on it goes.Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior

Even if the [dissenter’s] opinion is wrong, at least it adds a perspective to the debate—giving others an opportunity to look at things in a different light.

As I come to better understanding of the role of dissent in the judicial process of SCOTUS, the prospect of SCOTUS being “stacked” by either party is a fearful prospect. Eliminating minority opinion opens the door to disastrous consequences.

Once the process of group polarization begins gaining momentum within a community the minority group begins to withdraw from public life and discourse. As the voices around the minority group grow more extreme, shrill and radicalized they opt for silence over getting into fights. And this withdrawal fuels more sorting migration. The minority leaves and the majority group, with nary a dissenting voice to be heard, radicalizes ever further.

Could it be possible that a passage to a more well-reasoned and sensible society can be found through embracing dissent.?

“Mixed company moderates; like-minded company polarizes. Heterogeneous communities restrain group excesses; homogeneous communities march toward the extremes…Like-minded groups create a kind of self-propelled, self-reinforcing loop.”

…it’s important to note that the presence of a dissenter—any dissenter, no matter how incompetent—still made it possible for a large segment of participants to deviate from the majority and give the right answer.

…blockers [dissenters] question the merit or wisdom of new decisions. Instead of merrily going along for the ride, they raise points about the potential harmful consequences that might follow.

The example of SCOTUS, initially stimulated a formulation of another of my simplistic and naive “we just need to” solutions. In this case, embrace dissent. After a bit of pondering, the folly of “let’s all get along and embrace dissent” became increasingly apparent. Not withstanding the idea that dissent is an essential ingredient in healthy communities, dissent can be and is is often a negative. Paradoxically, the benefits of negative dissent outweigh the risk of its absence. Therefore, my concern about the SCOTUS and other federal courts becoming devoid of dissent. MY concern is not limited to SCOTUS but extends to all segments of our society, particularly political parties.

Who in their right mind would wish to eliminate their conscience, that small voice in our heads which restrains us when we veer off center? It appears that is the objective of both sides. The absence of conscience is the definition of a psychopath. These are two irreconcilable realities. On one one hand, healthy conversation and community, require dissent; on the other, dissent is disruptive and produces polarization. Perhaps it is not an either or proposition. Context and quality of dissent are important factors. The structured context and legal venue of SCOTUS permits dissent to function positively. In our current society where tribalism prevails, dissent is a threat to our respective tribe and is rejected.

I am of the opinion that the path to change and resolution runs through smaller groups in community. In that context relationships can be developed and dissenting voices can be heard. Only when trust prevails and fear is overcome will society will become more healthy and flourish.

Dissent is like fertilizer, over application destroys, but the proper amount, applied correctly produces abundance.

**I often wonder where I would be without dissent in my life**

References in this post:

Is it true? vs Does It Work?

George November 3, 2019 Faith Challenges 2 Comments

Reading a recent post by Pete Enns, I was challenged to do some self-assessment. Self-assessment is not my preferred activity since it usually brings disappointment. However, it is probably the most useful, and hopefully productive, exercise a human being can engage in. No pain no gain! I would recommend reading the entire post but, one section in particular caught my attention and is the subject of this post.

Is it true? Vs Does it work?

This difference comes down to Modernism and Postmodernism. Modernism attempts to construct a coherent worldview through the pursuit of an absolute truth. The Church’s response was to make a fact-based case for Christianity—e.g., eight reasons why Jesus was historically real, five reasons why the resurrection is true, etc.

Postmodernism, on the other hand, is marked by relativism and individualism, which has produced a culture defined by the phrase “you do you.” The value proposition for a Postmodern person is whether or not something works. “What works for me works for me, leave me alone.” This is where searchers reside, and they are not initially looking for a 200-page book of claims or a bulletproof sermon. They would rather taste and see whether what is offered is good.

In other words, the modernist asks the question “Is it true?” whereas the postmodernist asks, “Does it work?” And if it works, then for the postmodernist, it is true–because truth is found in something that works.

This is not to say that facts do not matter to the postmodernist. But the searcher says, “If something gives me peace, relieves my stress, gives me satisfaction, or provides a feeling of transcendence, then it works, and it surely must be true.” This is the story I’ve heard when Ivy League-educated lawyers in New York convert to Buddhism—it gives them an experience of peace.

It is my perception that “my people” generally have a negative view of postmodernism and would mostly categorize themselves as modernist as Enns describes. That is how I tend to assess myself, but, candidly, I am probably a chameleon.

Thinking about “Is it true?” vs “Does it work?”, and assessing my value proposition, I was struck by the predominance of “does it work?” in decision making. Of course, “does it work?’ is an important consideration. The problem comes when “Does it work?” trumps “Is it true?”.

The purpose of Enns’ post Is primarily to address ministry to the postmodern culture. It occurred to me that those issues are not confined to church but are also relevant to society in general, more specifically to our tribal and individual value propositions. That lead me to some self assessment.

Betraying my postmodern, relativistic bent; for purposes of self-evaluation, I revised “Does it work?” to “Is it best?”. Truth is important but, pragmatically, my decisions are most often between what works and what is best. What I discovered is disturbing. My propensity to chose what works over what is best has deep implications and reveals the depth of my vulnerability to trajectories that are, at least, ill advised and at worst destructive.

Further consideration brought me to a conclusion that what I am doing is simply mirroring the ethos of our deeply divided and chaotic culture. No matter what ideology is held the prevailing value is ‘does it work?”. Whether it is true or best is irrelevant because if it works, it is true (best). It not necessary for it to really work, uncompromising belief that it will work is enough. I believe that ethic transcends the modernist/postmodernist dichotomy. As a result, the peril of deciding what is true(best) on its utilitarian efficacy Is more than troubling.

I suspect many of “my people” are in the boat with me. I want to think that truth is my propositional value but when subjected to serious self-assessment, “does it work?” often wins the day.

I’m still reflecting on the implications of that reality for me.

Feeling like a Christian

George October 30, 2019 The Journey 1 Comment

A couple of years ago I heard a lesson in which the speaker presented an interesting question: “What does it feel like to be a Christian?” It is an intriguing question, particularly for me. Growing up, feelings were not something that was important. In fact, to express a feeling about what you believed would immediately discredit your belief i.e. “I just feel as …”. What was most important was truth … objective, verifiable and certain. Feelings were not apart of a truth equation. In that context, feeling like a Christian would most likely be akin to the the feelings we enjoy when we are proven to be right. A sense of self-satisfaction, self-rightness. It is a great feeling to know that you KNOW.

Describing what it feels like to be a Christian takes on a different dimension when the question is modified. “What does it feel like to have Christ living in you?”… What does it feel like when you are abiding in Christ and he is abiding in you?”… “What does it feel like when the Holy Spirit lives within you?” …”What does it feel like when you no longer live but Christ lives in you?” What these questions, and numerous other similiar ones we might ask, presume/imply is an intimate relationship.

I do not suppose there is a “correct” answer but there are two metaphors I have used that I believe helpful in my search to understand what it feels like to be Christian. The first metaphor comes out of my own childhood experiece and the second is one I read and have long since forgotten its source.

One of my earliest childhood memories is an occasion when I was riding in the back seat of our family’s car. My mother and father were in the front seat. It was a summer evening and we were driving home. The windows were down and the cool wind was blowing across the backseat. I had curled up on the seat and was listening to my parents’ casual conversation. I distinctly remember the overwhelming sense of comfort and safety as we drove along. The breeze was like a refreshing warm shower. My parents voices were audible remeinders of their presence and protection. Even now as I write these words while on my front porch, there is a gentle breeze blowing across my neck that recalls that occasion. I cannot explain how such an apparently insignificant experience has remained with me. In that experience I believe there may well be a glimpse of what it feels like to be Christian.

The second metaphor is a scene in a lovely city park. A park with lush green grass and tall shading trees. There is a playground with a child and his mother. While the mother is seated on a nearby bench, the child, by all appearances, seems to be totally unware his mother’s presence. He is happily playing and exploring. It is obvious his mother is continually aware of him but he he is not concerned. He knows that she is there and that she loves and cares for him but his focus is on being a boy. Only his occasional glance to verify her presence betrays his concern for her presence and protection. Suddenly the scene changes dramatically, playing on the gym bars, the child loses his grip and falls to the ground suffering a painful scrape to his knees. In that moment, he cries out for his mother and rushes without hesitation to her arms where he is comforted, reassured and healed by her gentle kisses. In a short time he returns to his play confident in his trust of his mother.

Sharing Good News – Kingdom as Agriculture

George October 22, 2019 Sharing Good News 0 Comments

As is often the case when I write on a subject, related or relevant thoughts and ideas seem to mysteriously (coincidentally?) appear. That was the case in my last post on Post Modernism and Sharing Good News. This post is similar in that the subject post from Richard Beck stimulated another perspective for me to consider in reimagining evangelism:

“Is my understanding of sharing good news consistent with the nature and character of the kingdom of God? “

Beck’s questions at the end of his post are helpful to me in addressing my question.

The Kingdom as Agriculture

Posted on 10.22.2019

It’s not news that Jesus was drawn to agricultural metaphors when we shared parables about the Kingdom of God. But I’ve been thinking about that more and more, wondering what Jesus was getting at.

Specifically, I was reading in Mark 4 where Jesus compares the kingdom to planting and seeds three times in quick succession.

The Parable of the Sower: “A sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seed fell on the path…seed fell into good soil and brought forth grain, growing up and increasing and yielding thirty and sixty and a hundredfold.”

The Parable of the Seed: “The kingdom of God is as if someone would scatter seed on the ground, and would sleep and rise night and day, and the seed would sprout and grow, he does not know how. The earth produces of itself, first the stalk, then the head, then the full grain in the head. But when the grain is ripe, at once he goes in with his sickle, because the harvest has come.”

The Parable of the Mustard Seed: “With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable will we use for it? It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth; yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes the greatest of all shrubs, and puts forth large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade.”

Of course, each parable has its own particular interpretation. The seed needs receptive soil. The seed grows on its own. The seed will grow beyond its humble beginnings. Each of these, held together, provides a window into how Jesus thought about what he was doing in the gospels.

But what I want to ask is this: Is there something significant in thinking about the kingdom in these agricultural terms?

What strikes me is that, given the military and conquest expectations Israel had for her Messiah, these agricultural metaphors seem very unexpected. When you think of “kingdom” you don’t, I expect, tend to stare at a seed growing, day after day. When you think of “kingdom” you think of armies, walls, territory, and power. You think of Empire.

And then here comes Jesus with something that sounds like this: “The Kingdom of God is like watching grass grow.” How anti-Empire is that vision? And watching the grass grow is a strange sort of Revolution. Watching the grass grow isn’t, I’m guessing, anyone’s view of The Resistance.

Some other thoughts:

What does it mean that the kingdom is sown rather than taken?

What does it mean that the kingdom requires waiting and passivity rather than forcing and activity?

What does it mean that the kingdom begins with the smallest thing rather than the largest?

All that to say, I think there is something deeply subversive going on in Jesus’s agricultural parables.

Sharing Good News – Postmodernism

George October 21, 2019 Sharing Good News 1 Comment

Continuing the Sharing Good News series, today is a post from Pete Enns’ blog by Aaron Bjerke. I found it to be informative and challenging as I think about the audience for Good News in our culture today.

“Searchers”: The Ignored Demographic of Spiritual Secularists

Throughout my pastoral experience over the past decade, I’ve noticed a new demographic emerging through questions that I’ve been asked by other congregants. There is a growing sub-demographic in the secular population that is searching for a spiritual experience, and it hasn’t received a lot of attention from the church. Whether it’s feeling stressed at work, increasingly dissatisfied with a relationship or money, postmodern Americans are increasingly seeking a spiritual remedy.In 2017, the meditation market (as it has been called) was a $1.2 billion industry in the U.S. Some project it will be worth over $2 billion by 2022. This growing trend is everywhere. For example, meditation rooms are the hottest new work perk, and CEOs are personally seeking out a practice of meditation in order to become better leaders. One observation is that the meditation movement is where the yoga movement was in the mid-90s, which means the ceiling for the meditation market is still miles high.The meditation market represents a spectrum of practices—such as mindfulness, transcendental meditation, or various forms of Buddhism—and promises an experience of peace, productivity, happiness, etc. This is done by taking back control of the mind and taming it. Consumers of these practices are generally not “skeptics”—the Richard Dawkins of the world who are hostile toward spirituality—nor are they “seekers” who are exploring the Christian faith and dialoguing with other Christians. These two groups have been engaged with success through various evangelism programs. Rather, those in the meditation market are what I’m calling “searchers”: seculars searching for a spiritual experience.

Is it true? Vs Does it work?

This difference comes down to Modernism and Postmodernism. Modernism attempts to construct a coherent worldview through the pursuit of an absolute truth. The Church’s response was to make a fact-based case for Christianity—e.g., eight reasons why Jesus was historically real, five reasons why the resurrection is true, etc.Postmodernism, on the other hand, is marked by relativism and individualism, which has produced a culture defined by the phrase “you do you.” The value proposition for a Postmodern person is whether or not something works. “What works for me works for me, leave me alone.” This is where searchers reside, and they are not initially looking for a 200-page book of claims or a bulletproof sermon. They would rather taste and see whether what is offered is good.In other words, the modernist asks the question “Is it true?” whereas the postmodernist asks, “Does it work?” And if it works, then for the postmodernist, it is true–because truth is found in something that works. This is not to say that facts do not matter to the postmodernist. But the searcher says, “If something gives me peace, relieves my stress, gives me satisfaction, or provides a feeling of transcendence, then it works, and it surely must be true.” This is the story I’ve heard when Ivy League-educated lawyers in New York convert to Buddhism—it gives them an experience of peace.

Re-imagining Ministry

The church must respect the searcher posture if it’s going to make any missional inroads into today’s culture, and the Bible gives us a picture to consider. In John 4, Jesus first told with the woman at the well “I work.” He said “I know you’re thirsty. I’ll quench your thirst forever.” It’s only after that that he has a theological conversation about mountains and her sin. He interacted with what she wanted to satisfy most—her thirst—and showed her that he works.What is it for the church to take a “Does it work?” approach to ministry? It means we must consider how we can help others experience God in non-modernist ways. The Bible and prayer give great opportunities for such a mission.Regarding the Bible, the skeptic/seeker approach (modernist approach) would seek to show that the Bible is presenting facts: spiritually, historically, and scientifically. The searcher’s approach is more reflective in nature, asking questions such as “What does this mean?” This question points to the importance of story, because what drives a story is meaning—“What’s the point?” And, if it’s true that the best stories always win, then a ministry approach for searchers does the hard and important work of learning how, as the hymn says, to re-“tell me the old, old story, of unseen things above, of Jesus and his glory, of Jesus and his love” in a way that is less about facts and more through the lens of the story of the power of Jesus in one’s life. For what could be more powerful than quenching your thirst forever?Regarding prayer, the claim of Jesus working in one’s life is not the prosperity gospel: follow Jesus and your life turns around. Rather, it’s saying that even if your life doesn’t turn around you can still have peace and joy amidst the chaos and unmet expectations, which is exactly one of the promises in the meditation market: peace in a chaotic life. Except unlike meditation, which is a form of control (and any therapist worth his or her weight knows the problem emotion of control is anxiety), the path of Jesus is one of prayer. This is significant because when you pray, you learn that God is in control—not yourself. Therefore prayer is not a posture of control but a posture of surrender, and it is that posture of surrender that the church needs to introduce to searchers. Up to this point, this demographic has largely been ignored by the American church. Like the woman John 4 who told her friends “come and see” the one who told me everything about myself, the church too must decide to strive to introduce and show searchers the same claim that Jesus revealed of himself at the well: I work.

Aaron Bjerke is planting a church in NYC out of Redeemer Presbyterian Church. Having been an Assistant Pastor there for seven years, he is excited to see a new expression of the gospel take root in the city for those searching for a spiritual experience. Originally from Minnesota, he lives with his wife, Erica, and two kids in Manhattan. Visit his church at www.TheWellNYC.life

For the Joy of the Journey

For the Joy of the Journey

A Dearth of Dissent

Is it true? vs Does It Work?

Feeling like a Christian

Grandkids