"The Irrational"

 NBC has a new TV series this year called "The Irrational". I find that title to be intriguing so I've been thinking about what we might see. According to the preview of the show, we find this, "Alec Mercer is a world-renowned leader in behavioral science who lends his expertise to an array of high-stakes cases involving governments, law enforcement, and corporations with his unique and unexpected approach to understanding human behavior." 

This tv series is about a "unique and unexpected approach to understanding." Is he really being "irrational"? The 1828 Webster dictionary defines irrational as "void reason." Doesn't seem like "The Irrational" showcases someone void reason, but rather someone who uses different reason that what we might expect. 

Is it possible that we claim someone is irrational (stupid, misguided, wrong, unfair, etc.) when they use an approach that reaches conclusions differently or unexpected from what we would conclude?  

Bertrand Russel, noted mathematician and philosopher once wrote this about rationality, “If you wish to become a philosopher, the first thing to realise is that most people go through life with a whole world of beliefs that have no sort of rational justification, and that one man’s world of beliefs is apt to be incompatible with another man’s, so that they cannot both be right. People’s opinions are mainly designed to make them feel comfortable; truth, for most people is a secondary consideration.”

Is he right? Do most people "go through life with a whole world of beliefs that have no sort of rational justification"? I say "NO." Does anyone have a corner on truth because of their rationality? Again, I say "NO."

Then, how do I view or understand "rationality"? The issue with two people coming to two different conclusions is not that one is "void reason." But rather, each person started from a different point. This starting point is called bias or core assumption. It is an endearing belief that is never questioned but used to process ideas rationally.

So, how does this work? Here's some examples:

The reason political conservatives and liberals disagree on policy is not that one is rational and one is not (although that's the argument normally used). The difference is their core assumption about which institution can best meet society's needs. Conservatives assume private markets can, liberals assume government can. Both are rational, both are moral, but each have a different bias on who is best to solve society's problems.

When I was in the Coca-cola system, the bottlers constantly bumped heads with the Coca-cola parent company. My boss at a major bottler would constantly view the parent company as irrational (stupid was normally what he said). I found that neither was irrational, both were smart people who could apply reason in their arguments. It was that each operated from a different business model, which determined core assumptions on what, how and why things needed to be done as they thought best.

Let's try this on something more difficult and complex. Are the Muslims who seek to destroy Western civilization irrational? Is flying planes into buildings killing many including themselves "void of reason"? Is Russia's attacks on Ukraine and Hamas' attacks on Israel irrational, stupid, wrong, etc.?

It certainly appears to those who value Western Civilization that these actions are totally without reason. These actions are seen as wrong, unfair, maybe even evil. Is it possible that there is plenty of reason in these actions but that the rational process sits on top of totally different assumptions about civilization? Is it possible that reason sits on top of tribal biases?

So, why would Bertrand believe that many people are irrational, not interested in truth? It's likely he saw his rationality superior to many others because his conclusions came from biases he had different from others. It's likely the case some people have a greater capacity to think critically and process rationally. Bertrand is likely correct in that people are comfortable with thoughts that match their bias. But this doesn't make them rational and others irrational.

I tend to like the premise of the new TV series "The Irrational." It's biases people have that constrain the expected conclusions they reach. Being "irrational" may simply be a rational process based on biases not commonly held by others and finding answers that others cannot see or undertsand due to their biases.

What was King Solomon thinking?

 

Recently a friend was sharing with me about a sermon series from church on Proverbs. He was relishing in how well the pastor was prepared and how much he was getting from the pastor's teaching. I agreed that I am aware of the hundreds of books written and sermons given on Proverbs. I know many people over the years that look to Proverbs for guidance in what/how they should do to prosper (some materially and some spiritually). 

Being the disruptor I am, I asked him one simple question, "Wasn't Ecclesiastes and Proverbs both supposedly written by King Solomon?" Not only was my friend not prepared for this question, he was somewhat puzzled by it. How could this question have anything to do with the excitement he felt in sharing about the lessons he was getting from Proverbs?

Then I asked, "if Ecclesiastes was Solomon's message to the ages that everything 'under the sun' is vanity (a vapor that does not last), then is wisdom found in Proverbs not 'vanity'?"

I could see him starting to connect the dots. After all, Proverbs has been admired for centuries for its lessons on wisdom and at the same time Ecclesiastes has also been admired for its message that nothing in this world delivers what man ultimately needs (wants).

Does the 'nothing delivers' of Ecclesiastes include the wisdom of Proverbs?

"I'm not ready yet to see Proverbs as 'vanity of vanities,' but I have to admit that I am a bit confused," was my response back to friend as he sought my mutual excitement of Proverbs.

"What was Solomon thinking?" I thought.

Moreover, has any pastor or theologian over the years even thought about the apparent contradictions of King Solomon. There are now more questions I would like to see Bible teachers explore, starting with this one: 

Since many believe Ecclesiastes was written toward the end of Solomon's life and follows Proverbs in order in the Bible, was Solomon having second thoughts about his views expressed in Proverbs? This happens to all the great people of history. As one ages his/her perspective can change. This certainly has happened to me.

If this is the case, should we hold Proverbs to such a high standard? Should Christians cling to Solomon's words on wisdom as they now do, if in the final analysis, wisdom as a guiding virtue of life in this world (under the sun) is vanity?

It's like Solomon is saying in Proverbs, "here's how to swim better," and then in Ecclesiastes, "but you're swimming in the wrong pool."

Did Solomon reconcile these two the benefit of proverbs and the impossibility of Proverbs like this, "man does not fulfil the law by doing, but the law is fulfilled in Jesus"? 

At this point I am just asking questions, but I would find it useful for a pastor or theologian to step back, ponder and pontificate for us "just what was King Solomon thinking?"

Spiritual lessons of pilates

 

"cinch your stomach," "pretend someone is punching you in the gut," "make your tailbone heavy," "look out, not down," "make your feet parallel, in line with your knees," "shoulders down," "chest flat."

These (and many more) are constant reminders from my pilates instructor to make my body do what it normally will not do on its own. My mind naturally sends the wrong signals to my body. By wrong, I mean, not as it was designed. I naturally slump, look down when I walk (ever seen four old men walk off of a golf green together?), stand incorrectly, use muscles from my extremities, not my core. By not pushing into my core, I do not gain the benefits of my strength. By proper alignment, rotation, flexibility, and appropriates sources of my strength, everything works better (including my golf swing). 

Such is pilates. 

Oddly, likewise are the challenges of my spiritual walk.

My nature is to "walk according to the flesh." Paul tells me that in Romans 7 and 8, but I know it from years of experience. I operate in social exchange. I seek what is fair. I need to be in control to make life work as I want. I am anxious and fearful it will not. I seek to confirm my built in biases and judge harshly that which does not. I want things as I want them and blame something or someone else  "out there" when they are not. Such is human nature (the flesh). It is fallen, flawed, futile. The flesh is naturally ever present.

Jesus said, "when I leave, a Helper will come." I need that Helper, just like I need Becky, my pilates instructor, constantly reminding me of how my nature is making my body more and more futile. Becky provides an influence to trust my core, not my nature. When I'm on my own, her instruction rings in my mind as a reminder of how my body was designed to work properly.

The Helper is the Holy Spirit. "Walking according to the Spirit" is a constant reminder from God I have a core strength I can rely on. At times I don't sense the Holy Spirit is actively instructing me. Its then I can trust the privileges and provisions of the Heavenlies which have been freely and willfully bestowed on me by the King.

My new perspective (the Bible calls "epignosis") is how I order my life. If pilates is conforming the body to follow the instructions of the mind, a knowledge of how the body works best. "Walking according to the Spirit" is a life lived by the constant presence of the Holy Spirit conforming my mind to my new life in the Kingdom. Again Paul says, "do not be conformed to your natural tendencies, but be transformed by a brand new mind," a mind under the influence of the Spirit. 

My body is better off in this world with pilates. My soul is forever better off with the Spirit.

Ponder that ....

It's all about your "needs"

 You may have heard me say or write many times how important people's "identity" is to their thoughts, emotions and choices. "Needs" is the other main driver of human existence. While "identity" is often something people attach to define themselves, "needs" are built in to each person from the beginning. For the human, life is all about meeting your needs.

For example, personality is the behavioral tendencies of a person to get their needs met. People seek to satisfy their needs instinctively, without even thinking about them.

 "Identity" is often openly discussed. Gender, race, age, status, etc. are familiar ways to identify ourselves. "Needs" are quite hidden from our self awareness. 

Similarly, for Christians identity is often openly presented in the Bible as something that is transformed by the Spirit. We are specifically told that "in Christ we are a new creation." Paul admonishes Christians to "walk according to the Spirit", which is a statement about how identity frames our existence. In other words, Christ becomes our life and in that, Christians' emotions, thoughts and choices are by necessity influenced by the Spirit (per Martin Luther). In a single identity unity results among Christians.

But, what about needs? Do Christians have the same needs as everyone else? OR, should Christians deny their needs? OR are Christians' human needs changed by the Spirit? If Christians continue to have needs, how are they satisfied? Is it like this? 

  

IS GOD THE ONE WHO MEETS MY NEEDS? 

Maybe, it depends on how you view your "cup"

If our view of needs (our cup) stays the same after becoming a Christian as our view before, then Christianity is about us and not about God. The world has every right to accuse Christians of being self-centered. How Christians understand "needs" is key to how they understand God and testify their faith in Him.

For secular man needs are desires of the soul that must be met by the world (circumstances and situations) for them to be satisfied. Through a process of exchange transactions, people influence or manipulate others to act in ways that meet their needs. Needs satisfaction is about making self OK. 

James Dobson, noted Christian psychiatrist, once said, "girls give sex to get love and boys give love to get sex." Motivation on a human plane is fundamentally transactional. Even the most virtuous person is getting their need of acceptance satisfied by meeting the expectations of society or their god. Note, fear is the human emotion that results from a person's recollection that their needs may not be met. Uncertainty rules the human condition and uncertainty is about needs. Uncertainty fosters the need for control. Uncertainty is self centered.

Since Christians are human, they certainly have similar needs of achievement, safety, freedom, comfort, fulfillment, certainty, and acceptance. However, Christians believe that satisfaction of such needs in the world is not what makes the soul well. Trusting this world to meet the needs of our soul is futile. Such needs of the soul transcend our human existence when we recognize our soul is eternal. The Holy Spirit reveals to Christians everything necessary to satisfy deep needs of the soul. 

The satisfaction of needs is willfully and generously bestowed on us by God through the Spirit in our intimate relationship with Jesus. Jesus tells us, "do not fear little flock (children of God), your Father has gladly chosen to give you His Kingdom." There is no transaction. There is no uncertainty. There is no fear. There is no need for control.

Needs satisfaction for the Christian is not about self. It does not honor God because of what He does for us. On the other hand, needs satisfaction of the Christian points to the King.  Jesus is glorified in His special power and authority as God's Son. We certainly benefit from our relation ship with Jesus, but we are not the point. Needs are satisfied, for sure, but the SATISFIER receives our adoration and worship because of who He is and not what He does for us.

Ultimately, how does needs satisfaction frame the narrative of your life? 

Hopefully, it's NOT all about your needs 

wisdom and the soul

 

Most everybody is aware they have a soul and most people desire or at least admire wisdom. Yet, what do most people know about wisdom and the soul? How would most define these terms? make sense of them? apply them in their own life? Many people don't know what they don't know. Many people are not particularly aware of or care whether they understand these ideas in a sensible way.

For many this blog might even be a waste of time.

On the other hand, I post this blog because I am aware and do care about wisdom and the soul. I have thought about these a lot. It matters to me as I try to live well in this world.

Stay with me if you wish to explore wisdom and the soul more.

First, wisdom is considered a good thing to have. We trust others who we deem to be wise. We seek their counsel and look to them for guidance. The 1828 Webster dictionary says wisdom is "the right use of knowledge." That's nice, but do we all know what is right in the same way? The dictionary goes on to say this about wisdom - "a faculty of the mind of discerning or judging what is most just, proper, and useful." Again, as with what's right, just, proper and useful can be quite subjective. Is wisdom about abortion concerning what's just for the unwanted pregnancy or the unborn child? Is justice for the illegal immigrant justice for the sovereign nation? Wisdom for one person may not be wisdom for another. This can make wisdom somewhat problematic.

The Greek in the Bible for wisdom is rooted in the work "sophia." This appears over 50 times and means "clarity." "Sophia" is the root word for philosophy, a field of study to gain perspective on things like knowing, behaving and governing. So, in a sense philosophers have attempted to bring clarity to life and thus wisdom. How well do you think they have done. The Bible says that man only gets wisdom or clarity from the Holy Spirit. If this is what you believe, then wisdom is not man's to produce but to only receive.

Now for the soul. Again, going to Webster we read, "the spiritual, rational, and immortal substance of man, that part of man that enables him to think and reason and render a moral government." That's a lot to take in. There are many theories man has about the soul. These explanations in many ways describes various religious views man has as people try to connect the soul to this idea of spirit and immortality.

The Bible references the Greek word "psuché" over 100 times in the New Testament. This would mean the NT says twice as much about the soul as it does wisdom. Since this word for soul is the root for psychology, then this field of study focuses what man can learn about the soul. 

So, there is what man has learned about the soul, human psychology, and what the Bible teaches us about the soul. Let's call that Kingdom psychology. Interestingly, I have studied both in great depth. I find it fascinating that every construct explored in human psychology is also covered in the Bible. Things like motivation, perspective, emotion, self esteem, satisfaction and acceptance.

Yet, what Jesus says about these things are exactly the opposite of what humans have discovered through their research. This should not be surprising because humans can only see flawed human nature, what mankind is like because it fell from grace. We can only learn and discover the Kingdom soul through eyes of faith. Using physical senses cannot reveal to us the nature of the Kingdom soul.

There is an awful lot to learn about the Kingdom soul. It's all there in the Bible. Just look for it. It's not theology, its Biblical psychology. You probably can't find many churches who want to or can tell you about Kingdom psychology. It's a fantastic field of study to ponder. I can attest to that.

gratitude and thankfulness: a difference without distinction?

 

You hear many people advocating "an attitude of gratitude" as a preferable perspective on their life. We also celebrate Thanksgiving and advocate a thankful heart as a great way to live. It is easy to use these ideals interchangeably, but are they? And if not, does it matter? 

Two good questions you've probably never asked.

Let's explore.

Webster says gratitude is "an emotion of the heart, excited by a benefit or favor received." Thankful is "impressed with a sense of kindness received and ready to acknowledge it."

On the surface we recognize that being grateful and thankful are a little different (or we wouldn't need both words" but seem very similar, at least in practice. So we can safely say they are different, but does the difference really matter. In other words, is there a distinction?

If two things are distinct, then their effect is different. So, for gratitude and thankfulness to be "different without a distinction" then there are subtle differences but their effects are basically the same. Let's see. 

The effects of gratitude and thankfulness occur within the soul of the one who is grateful and thankful. These ideals should give us a positive sense of our surroundings and how they affect us. Both certainly do. But there is more we need to explore. There are possibly other effects each may have on our soul, and they may be different (making them distinct).

For gratitude, Webster goes on to say, "an agreeable emotion accompanied by good will toward the benefactor, and a disposition to make a suitable return of benefit." This implies gratitude is a social exchange phenomenon because there is a need for reciprocity of some kind. You say, "Ok, that's normal." Well, yes it is. Social exchange is fundamental to the human condition. Humans must find some way to return favor when favor is received. It's our nature. 

Webster stops with thankfulness as just an acknowledgment, not a need to return favor. Would it surprise you if I said gratitude is not a Biblical concept? Only thankful is. This makes sense since the Bible is God's view of redeeming human nature, not a better way to apply it.

The Greek word in Scripture for thankful is "eucharisteó", like 1 Thessalonians 5:18 - "in everything give thanks, for this is the will of God for you in Christ Jesus." What is it about this word that makes it distinctively different from gratitude in how it affects your soul?

This Greek word means, "God's grace works well." See, grace is the opposite of social exchange. Grace is favor received simply by the good will of the giver. We simply acknowledge grace. There is not a sense of returning favor to keep things balanced. 

God's grace has a profoundly different effect on our soul than favor we receive that generates a need to return favor, like gratitude. 

In this way, gratitude and thankfulness is not just different, but also distinctively different.

So, is it the right testimony of a Christian to say, "I have an attitude of gratitude"?

Worth pondering ..... 

"the right to life"

 Arguably the most contentious issue in American society for the past 50 years has been the rights of women (e.g. abortion0 vs the right to life (e.g., the unborn child). In fact, I suspect that passionate discussions by Evangelical Christians with the world around them have centered more on "right to life" than the Gospel itself. Just speculation from observation.

Yelling at the world about rights, especially to life and liberties, has increasingly been the reason we have the term "Christian conservative values." As a Christian this has increasingly disturbed me. "Why?" you might ask. "Doesn't the Bible teach life is sacred and freedom of religion?" 

I don't think so and here is why.

Let's go back and try to understand the key words in "right to life," such as rights and life.

First, let's examine "rights." Your "right" is granted to you by someone (something) or you just claim you have it. Our country was founded on the principle that those in the USA have "inalienable rights." What is meant by this is that our rights are not granted to us by a central government. There is an assumption that mankind has natural rights in this world granted by God. But is that what the Bible says?

There is no reference in Scripture to the rights Christians have in this world, In fact, The Kingdom of God in which Christians dwell in citizenship is not of this world. Christians are aliens and sojourners. Do aliens and sojourners have rights granted to them. Jesus says the world will reject you because of me. If we are rejected, why would we have rights? Jesus goes on to encourage Christians to not try to stand on the rights of this world. If you're asked to go one mile, go two. If you are asked for your tunic, give also your cloak. If someone hits you on one cheek, give them the other to smack. These are Christian values which give us a freedom not provided to us by "rights."

The founders wrote about an assumption they made - God gives humans certain rights in this world. I don't see where God said that.

Second, what is "life"? There are at least 3 forms of life expressed in the Bible. There is physical life of the body, there is the Spiritual life of God, and there is the human soul of the basis of the self. Death, the idea of the end of a life, is the Bible is from the Greek language idea of "being severed from something." So physical death is when the soul is severed from the body and spiritual death is when the soul is severed from God's spirit (the Holy Spirit).

From the Bible's perspective, physical death is normal and is not a crisis of "self." However, spiritual death is not God's idea of what's best for humans. In fact, spiritual death is tragic in God's eyes. I don't see where the soul can be severed from itself which may mean the soul does not die.

The soul before physical death lives with God through His Spirit or is in fact dead spiritually, although alive physically. When the soul is severed from the body, the person as the world knows them is no longer alive. However, the soul lives on either connected to God's spirit or not. 

Many of you may disagree or have never thought about a person's soul as being forever, but Christians call eternal life the life in which the soul is influenced by or in relationship with God's Spirit.  

In conclusion, "the right to life" for a Christian has nothing to do with the body or with this world. It is simply God's plan to have relationship with His chosen for ever and ever, whether still in the body or not. Paul makes this real clear many times.

This is the Good News of the Bible I ponder, This what should be shouted out to a dark and dying (spiritually) world .....  

 There are many reasons I have to be "pro-life". I think society functions better when each person is not in a position to have someone else sever their body from their soul. I happen to consider the unborn as a person. These are my views from civics (how a society governs itself), not from God.

There is no political agenda in this blog!