Presence not presents

 We are moving into the holidays. Everyone seems to be focused on Black Friday, a great time to buy their Christmas presents. Afterall, isn't that what Christmas is all about - GIVING presents to family, friends, and the 'needy'? 

Maybe there is another way to view Christmas. Maybe it's more about presence? "and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." Jesus, the Word, the ultimate rationale, became physically present to the world. This was God's strategy, to be present. However, was Jesus more than just physically on earth? Is the presence of God beyond just a physical person? Christmas may be more about receiving God's presence, Jesus, as a gift to our soul rather than us giving each other physical presents?

We hear some people claim their life's goal is to "show up." Does this mean "being present"? What does this all mean to us as we desire to be strategic, win, be successful in life?

Being present (instead of giving presents) likely starts with our view of time. Sometimes we call this, "being in the moment." But, what does moment mean? The definition is "a specific instant or point in time." Practically speaking, "being in the moment" is focusing on the time that is right now. Literally speaking, we can never be physically anywhere but in the moment. So, why do we emphasize "being present" or "in the moment" if we cannot be otherwise? 

Good question.

The idea of "being present" must mean something other than physical presence. This only leaves emotional, cognitive and willful presence. Let's explore this psychological idea of "being present" vs the physical. You may feel this is deep, but its more just you hadn't thought about time in this way often, if at all.

St Augustine believed how we view time is very important. He wrote about time in his famous autobiographical essays called "Confessions." Augustine claims that there is no such thing as now or "the present." Follow me here, this can have profound impact for you. It's not just a mental exercise.

Augustine believed (and I'm paraphrasing) that once the present is here now becomes the past and right before now happens, the present moment is the future. A mathematician would say it this way, "now is the least upper bound of all instances of gaps in time between now and past instances and the lower bound of all instances of gaps in time between now and future instances. So, the present does not exist itself but is the 'limit' (math term) on two converging series of time lapses from now of moments in time, the past and future."

You may be totally confused by now, but that's ok. Here is why this is important strategically for you even if you don't understand present this way.  

With respect to time, the instances that are most salient or relevant to you are the ones that just happened and the ones about to happen. These are the aspects of time that should most influence your thoughts, emotions and choices. "Being in the moment" is having you attention focused mainly, if not entirely, on the immediate moments around now. Learning from the instances that has just occurred and preparing for the instances that will occur in a very short order. 

Navy Seals are taught this about "being in the moment." When Jesus says, "Seek ye first" he is referencing what should be the most salient to us, or to be that which occupies our mind above all other things. It may be why He follows this with, "don't be anxious about tomorrow."

So, what did God do at what we celebrate as Christmas? He became present. This was His greatest love for us. So then, what can we best do for those we love? Be present rather than give presents. What is the best strategy for life? Is not the right planning so that spectacular things occur in the future but rather spectacular presence that delivers the right future.

 

"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?"