"Can I trust you with my love?"

When we are pursuing a loving relationship, the most important and often asked question we have of the other person is, "if I give you my heart, can I trust you?" It's not surprising that too often the Christian approaches God this way. We profess, "I'll join, if I know you will deliver." We seek to know if He is trustworthy, not vice versa. What if the title of this blog were the question God is asking you?

Have you pondered that?

I have just been listening to a sermon by Jon Tyson, pastor of The Church of the City NY, on faithfulness. It was one of the best sermons I've heard. I thought I'd share a few points he made that are worth repeating and pondering:

"unfaithfulness" is
       a life controlled by the shifting winds of circumstances
       mistakes circumstances for the person

"faithfulness" is
      a relational orientation
      about who we love
      a lover's loyalty, not a worldview belief
      enjoying the One who loves you, not a duty to the rules
      functional trust, not theological proficiency
      confessing (deeply align with) Christ vs. professing (publicly endorsing) Christ

"where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is tested"   Luther

Faithfulness is "loving what God loves"
     His Word
     His Kingdom
     His Glory

"Can I trust you with my love?" is not the question you should ask God, but the question He puts in front of you when He invites you to be His treasured possession.

That's pondering material .....
     

does faith and reason belong together?

There is a lot of confusion around the ideas of faith and reason. You may not ponder this much, but your deep seated understanding of these two terms, especially in relationship to each other, makes a huge difference in how you think, feel, and act.

Let's explore some of the ways people mistakenly make sense of faith and reason and why it may matter to you.

What are some typical views that need closer examination? Many believe that faith is a religious term and reason is equivalent to science. I would propose that both of these are myths that can restrict understanding or confuse people and their discourse with each other.

By definition, faith comes from an ancient Greek word denoting a reliance on evidence that we cannot gain through our physical senses. Everyone has faith. Faith is NOT emotion. Faith is the beginning of all reason. Psychologists point to intuition or conscience. Business people claim "my gut tells me." Christians associate faith with revelation from God's Spirit and His word. The simplest way to understand your faith is asking this question in any situation, "what is obvious to me?"

When we put a source to our unseen evidence, then we have a type of faith. So, when we simply say, "have faith," we are generally trying to eliminate or minimize the role of reason or the need for physical evidence. We actually are making a meaningless statement because there is no target or source of the evidence in which we are applying trust. Often, there is an implied, trust your heart or some benevolent cosmic force, but the target of faith is likely unclear.

Typical views of reason as science and vice versa can also be misleading and confusing. Science is the process of collecting and organizing evidence gained through our physical senses to understand how different "things" relate to each other. Science uses reason to obtain its inferences (conclusions), but so does faith. Reason is the cognitive activity of drawing meaning from evidence, which can be gained through our physical senses (observable evidence) or our faith (unobservable evidence).

The point of this blog is that there are two kinds of evidence upon which humans apply reason to draw conclusions. Reason is applied to unseen evidence (faith) as much or more than to physical evidence (science). In fact, most often the purpose of reason applied to physical evidence or science is to confirm what we have reasoned or concluded from unseen evidence (faith). The human condition is biased (compelled) to confirming one's deep seated faith with what it observes.

This leads to differences in the meaning of trust. Human nature actually views trust as a "trust but verify." The soul that is transformed by the Gospel of Jesus views trust as "trust the Sovereign will of the Father." I've said this many times, the Christians who love to quote Proverbs 3: 5, but still struggle with how God is working in their circumstances, may just be relying on their own understanding of trust.

So, in many ways Christians and non Christians are alike in their humanity. In both cases the soul reasons evidence from unseen sources and from physical sources. The difference is that the Christian soul does not need the confirmation of science in order to trust the unseen evidence. For the Christian, science has practical application for temporal activities while on earth. Human nature orients the soul to trust their reasoning of the "outcomes of things" in the physical world. A Kingdom nature orients the soul to reason Holy Spirit revelation from the "source of all things" generated from their intimacy with Jesus.

While no person can escape the claim, "I am human," Christians can thankfully praise God by claiming, "I am not ONLY human."

The message of this blog does not come easily or naturally to the human mind, but it may be what Paul is calling the Christian to when he says, "do not conform to the systems of your nature, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind."

While you may yet to fully grasp this, you can at least ponder it .....

"beware of the undertow"

Sometimes when I would go to the beach, there would be a sign warning swimmers of dangerous conditions, "beware of the undertow." What is undertow ans why is it dangerous? Webster defines undertow as, "an underlying current, force, or tendency that is in opposition to what is apparent."


The danger is that undertow will take you in a direction that is different than the direction you think you are going. In fact, a direction that is dangerous. Undertow takes you out to sea when the waves appear to be taking you toward the shore. Have you ever been in undertow and felt what that is like?

There are many forces at work in nature that have a similar characteristic. Its not apparent or visible to normal sight, and it can take you somewhere that is different than what you think, maybe even to somewhere that is dangerous.

You may have heard, "all nature seeks equilibrium." You see the force of equilibrium especially in economics and ecology. In human behavior it is the force of equilibrium that holds relationships together. This force is deep seated in the nature of humans and their institutions. This force is called "social exchange." Social exchange is a theory claiming that people naturally give in order to receive and when they receive, they return in order to keep the relationship in balance. Social exchange is essentially reciprocity based in the human obsession with justice.

Where is the danger?

People submit themselves to institutions in order to receive some goods or services from the institution. Social exchange explains why employees stay with their employer and employers seek to keep their employees through reward systems. When employees believe the reward is insufficient exchange for their labor, they leave. When employers believe the compensation for the employee is too much of an exchange, the employer eliminates the employee.

You might say, "this seems reasonable to me, where's the danger?" Good question. Danger is likely not apparent because this looks normal on the surface, like the waves taking everything toward shore.

Let's look beneath the surface to the nature of the exchange. One party, the employees, receive goodies from the institution they cannot produce for themselves. What do they give in return? They give control to the institution. The institution is willing to give goodies to people as long as the people do what the institution wants. If this balance satisfies both parties, then the relationship remains intact.

The danger is that the institution may slowly and subtly grab control to the point that the people cannot get back their liberty. If you are old enough, you have likely heard the old Tennessee Williams' song, "I owe my soul to the company store." This is a recognition that often organizations "enslave" workers because the employees believe they cannot live without the goodies provided by the company.

The same thing happens with government. The public looks to government for goods and services. In return government desires to control aspects the public's life. Over time, does the relationship evolve into the public being in bondage, so to speak, to government? History has shown this occurs time and time again. The public wakes up one day and they have gone out to sea, not toward the shore.

Social exchange is an undertow. It is a force at work in relationships. It is not apparent relationships of fair exchange take one party to a greater and greater sense of obligation to the other party. As long as institutions, like companies and government, value control where they provide benefits of product and services to others, the end game of the members of the institution is a loss of freedom.

"Beware of the undertow." When things look attractive on the surface, it's possible you may find yourself far out to sea and not safely on the shore. Certainly worth pondering .....

Is your vote a moral choice?

There is so much emotion around voting based on which candidate is on the right side of morality. This issue basically has two parts. One is judgments about the individual candidates themselves and the other is the policies advocated by the people who seek public office.

Unfortunately, most of the voter's attention is focused on being against the person they don't like. In other words, its much easier and more convenient to criticize and reject the person you don't want than to ponder the effect of that person in their governing practices, AND the basis for rejecting them is more likely about their character or morality. The idea that you vote for the person you like personally more than for any policy reason has been captured in the question, "which candidate would you prefer to have a beer with?"

More recently candidates can easily be rejected based on their political correctness or sexual mistakes of the past. Elections ultimately become voting AGAINST the candidate you dislike more than voting FOR the one you believe will govern in a way that is best for society.  Because elections are essentially a choice between 2 candidates, people on each side try to "justify" their vote by deeming the one they are against as immoral or otherwise unworthy.

Beyond fondness for and moral consideration about individual candidates, it has also become customary to judge political views you hold as right (aligned with truth) and those you oppose as wrong or immoral. This is a more complex and interesting topic. More liberal progressive advocates believe income inequality, closed borders, lack of access to education and healthcare by the poor, war, anti-abortion as a restriction on women's reproductive rights, and demographic privilege are immoral. Their view is increasingly seen as Biblical. They believe a moral people (represented by their government) are only JUST when they provide all citizens with what they need (and maybe want) regardless of their ability to pay for it. The idea of "deserve" means the govt grants people God given rights to certain benefits just because they are human. This leads to more of a socialistic view of the economic and political system. Govt control is the best producer and distributor of goods and services to society. Often this is expressed by pointing to the immoral nature of capitalism based on greed of those who game the system. 

The opposing view, also often biblically based, is that the most moral thing a society can do is to grow prosperity, which ultimately produces the least amount of poverty and neglect. Here, personal liberty, such as right to life and religious freedom, and free markets are God given rights that provide incentives to take personal responsibility for actions and to innovate so that BOTH the risk taker and society can gain from new and improved products and services. Justice is not guaranteeing equal outcomes but a system of people getting what they deserve based on what they do. Privilege is immoral because it is seen more as sloughing and entitlement. Conservative political people see government control as a constraint on prosperity and personal freedom. This view is seen by many as the moral imperative of society and becomes the basis for choosing their candidate.

While each side touts their view as moral and the opposing view as immoral, there is a chance that the choice is not a moral one at all. The choice is maybe JUST one of civics and economics. What if an election was society simply choosing whether they prefer to give up some prosperity for more safety or whether they wish to give up some safety to provide opportunity for higher levels of prosperity.

These are the choices every country makes at every election.

The trade-offs between the human's deep seated desires for safety and liberty is a very REAL choice in elections, but its not a moral choice. I ponder the time when public discourse debates the competing biases and not camouflage the debate in which candidate has the moral high ground ....   

capitalism has a double bottom line

Capitalism is not new, contrary to progressive liberal claims. It's as old as human beings themselves. In the very nature of each person from the beginning of time until the end is the compulsion to trade. Fair exchange is endemic in human nature. Yet, capitalism is under assault as it is viewed as greed run amuck. This is a very limited and misguided view of capitalism. A little understanding wouldn't hurt anyone.

Who are the players in capitalism? First, there are the capitalists. Many think these are the ones who run off with all the money leaving everyone lacking. Nooooo, the capitalists are the ones with capital, willing to risk it for some return. Capitalists have a "double bottom line," representing their wish to gain a return on their investment of time and money both financially and ecologically. A ecological return is the benefit or value the capitalist brings to others.



Others impacted by the capitalists can be one of two kind. First, there are the ones outside of the organization established by the capitalist that form what is called "the market." These people benefit from the capitalist because they receive in some form of exchange the products and services that make their life more favorable. The degree the capitalist maintains engaged customers and consumers is the degree that the capitalist is winning in their ecology.

Another group of others outside the capitalist's organization are those who benefit from any residual effects of the capitalist's impacts. Air and water quality, roads, schools, commerce from support systems, etc. that exist in part because the capitalist is creating economic, social and environmental factors resulting from their presence in the community.

Inside the organizations of capitalists are managers and workers. These are called agents of the capitalists. When the production and distribution of goods require more human resources than just the capitalists themselves, an organization is formed and agents have to be employed by the capitalists. In a similar way to the ecology, capitalists must maintain a favorable position with agents or they will leave and not be engaged in the capitalists' activities. The trick for capitalists with regards to agents is that there are normally conflicting objectives and needs. If the capitalists fail to satisfy agents needs, the capitalists no longer retains agents and the capitalist cannot meet its double bottom line. If the agents desire more from the capitalist than the capitalist wants or can provide agents, then the capitalists dismisses the agents.

Now, this is how capitalism works. Often businesses are seen only for their greedy financial interests, but economics involves much more. It involves equilibrium among all constituents, both inside and outside the organization of the capitalist. Any successful capitalist understands that over time, they must win on the Double Bottom Line.   

Under normal conditions, the capitalists seek equilibrium with internal and external constituents, called stakeholders. The capitalists can then claim all residual financial benefits for themselves to offset the risks of providing capital. This is the normal risk/reward force that drives capitalism.

In unusual times, such as the current social tragedy of the coronavirus, capitalism embraces unusual norms. Here the capitalists forego some or all of their desired financial reward to support abnormal needs of stakeholders. This is what is happening NOW. Capitalists are finding ways they can use their residual claims from normal times to invest in the lives of stakeholders who have less options and opportunity to navigate the crises. This adjustment may include how agents who have benefited greatly by the capitalists' successes may now forego or share benefits with the agents who have benefited less.

Capitalism embraces all of this. It is the beauty and lure of capitalism for everyone. Greed finds itself into every system in which humans operate. Capitalists and stakeholders can be greedy. Greed is not peculiar to capitalism. Fair exchange both inside and outside the organizations is what makes capitalism work. Fair exchange is the engine of capitalism, the purest form of justice. There is a DOUBLE BOTTOM LINE. It is, or at least should be, the full horizon of the capitalist's vision.

Just some thoughts worth pondering in times of social distancing when capitalism is under assault but is the answer ....

"I have a bias"

 A half a century ago Martin Luther King addressed a large crowd with these immortal words - "I have a dream." The full brunt of his words railed against racial bias in the country and indeed the world. Bias as bigotry began the trend in which the term bias took on a negative notion.

Over 20 centuries ago another King pronounced that he had a dream. Jesus taught only a few disciples of His bias to the Kingdom of Heaven. He described a realm where God's grace provides everything and His provision is freedom. There was no social media around for either King. While Jesus' idea of freedom was what MLK, a preacher of the gospel, was referencing, the world didn't really understand. Why? Because the human condition is biased to a nature unlike the Kingdom of light. Human nature is a bias to steal God's glory, not reflect it. Mankind looks to the world to give it its rights.

You see, bias is not restricted to racial bigotry. Bias is any endearing belief you hold that you never question but influences all of your souls thoughts, feelings and choices. Your bias is your heart's desire. Jesus was going at mankind's core bias. The first humans decided that they could be God and received a fundamental bias that identifies with a realm (the world's system) that is at enmity with God's Kingdom of Heaven.

So, Jesus explains the contrast of these two biases in His sermon to His disciples (often called the "Sermon on the Mount"). He, too, uses the idea of light and darkness. A bias to the Kingdom of Heaven brings God's light into the world by reflecting (glorifying) His Son as the moon reflects the sun. Human bias motivates man to pursue and produce "light" in their own power. But this "light", man calls virtue and morality, is a counterfeit to God's light. Man's own light is fake news, not good news. Human nature obsesses in the rightness of man's own version of justice and revels in elitism.

Understanding bias is to understand faith. For faith, too, is an endearing belief we hold that informs all thoughts, feelings, and choices. Everyone has faith. Everyone walks in faith. Everyone trusts something they cannot prove. That's not the question. The issue is which of the two fundamental biases, which flows from an identity in this world or an identity in Christ, represents the faith one holds dear?

Some of you may have assumed by the title and picture of MLK that I might be disparaging MLK and supporting bigotry. After all, I did grow up in Ala in the 50's and 60's. This might have been what was OBVIOUS to you in some small way before you read the blog. What is obvious to you in any situation points to your core bias.

Just something to ponder when you have time .....

pondering "Just Mercy"

 "Just Mercy" is a moving movie that has recently come out based on a period of history that makes us all stop and think and weep. Set in rural south Ala in the late 1980's and early 1990's, the story is an account of severe injustice propagated on the most vulnerable of our society, those who receive the the death penalty without guilt and fair representation. The movie based on a true story set in Monroeville, Ala highlights how little has changed in the 30 years after the South and indeed the nation was supposedly awaken by the impact of the  movie based on Harper Lee's book "To Kill a Mockingbird."

This was particularly salient to me since I saw the movie as a young boy in Montgomery and lived in Monroeville as a young family man in the early 1970's. You might say I lived in the epicenter of the 1960's Civil Rights movement, so the story had a deep emotional connection with me.

Those of you that know me also know I have spent a great deal of my work in recent years trying to understand the effect of the human obsession with justice compared to the transforming Gospel of Grace that underwrites the Kingdom of Heaven. Basically, justice is a reciprocity based on exchanging rewards and punishment to balance one's actions. Justice is what we deserve based on what we do. People desire fairness more than anything. The natural tendency and proclivity for justice, which is central to the human condition, actually constrains what should become natural to us in the provisions and privileges of grace as Kingdom dwellers. Jesus repeatedly describes His Kingdom as one where God provides generously not based on doing good, but to those who receive by faith what Jesus has done for them. The fallen nature of man to demand justice may be the biggest constraint on the soul in trusting grace.

So, what should the Christian's response to "Just Mercy" be? Good question. Here's where I have come down. Christian's should abhor injustices when punishment is unduly administered. This type of injustice in society is simply the outgrowth of power grab for personal gain. This type of injustice should break our heart, just as it does God's. But is hating injustice the same as being an advocate for justice? Here is where Christian's should differ from any non-believing "good person." If philosophy and psychology both find that core to the human condition is a desire for the virtue of justice, then what makes a justice centric Christian different, and why is the cross of Jesus necessary?

At the end of the movie, the main character, who has admiringly committed his life to unjust death penalties, says that justice, mercy and grace is what we should all be about. This is where he lost me. If justice is getting what we deserve, mercy is not getting what we deserve, and grace is getting what we don't deserve, how can we be about all 3 at the same time? Ever thought about that? Isn't just mercy an oxymoron?

Aren't mercy and grace just forms of injustice? Not the type the story moves us to tears over, but a different form of injustice that causes many in society great concern. Those, who believe a crime should be fairly punished, do not take mercy and grace well. They see it as weak, promiscuous, and fight it at every turn. This is the battle over the death penalty itself, and even issues like abortion. One person's mercy and grace is another's injustice.

If God's mercy and grace were similar forms of injustice, then He would not be just, and that cannot be. This is the unique role of the Cross in human history and the central theme of how we are all wrapped up in His story.

My wife use to ask me after a really good movie like Just Mercy, "what did you think of the movie?" Responses like this over time is the reason she does not ask me anymore. She rather speculates on what's going on inside my head and says, "Why can't you enjoy movies like everyone else? Just take them for what they are."

Good question and certainly worth me pondering ....