and the problem is ...

One of the problems many educators face is, "how do we teach kids to solve problems?" Critical thinking is at the top of the list in qualities businesses are looking for in new hires. Its been quite common in my work with students and employees to help them learn to solve problems rather than treat symptoms. Obviously, this is what we want from medical physicians when we are sick. Don't just give me something for the fever, get rid of the infection.

This is not new. Over 2500 years ago when the Greeks began the work of philosophy, they were trying to solve three problems. These were

1.  the problem of knowing (how do we know what is?)

2.  the problem of behavior (what is the right thing to do?)

3.  the problem of governing (how do we treat each other?)

Since 400 - 500 BC, humans have relied on the findings of Socrates, Plato, and especially Aristotle for the ways in which we should solve these three problems. First, we know "what is true" by reasoning what we see. This is the basis of science and works fairly well with knowing the physical world. There has been serious disagreement over the years about how we reason truth about invisible objects. Science evolved to support knowing the world we see. Scientific inquiry then became the way to try and solve the problem of knowing what we cannot see. For instance, Thomas Aquinas, the 13th century Christian philosopher, used Aristotle's model of reasoning cause and effect to prove how to know that God exist.  

From Aristotle's work on "knowing" came the idea of virtue, universal principles we can reason about the right way to be and do. Be fair. Be kind. Be courageous. Be free. and so forth. This solves the second problem, "how do we behave?"

The problem of governing became one of ethics and morality. There are universal codes of conduct that we can reason from observing the world over time. These suggest the best way for society to operate for the benefit of all its occupants. Those in charge of others should be moral and expect all other citizens to be also. Government should put into law these principles. Much like Aquinas, the founding fathers of the US took Aristotle's model and applied an assumption that God's Word provides a script for moral governing. Thus, the third problem was solved for the US by the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

The prevailing notion that the US is a Christian nation was established and has been the basis for political advocacy of evangelical Christians ever since. Christians push forward the idea of Christian morality and values. But, is this how Jesus advocated solving these three problems?

It might be noted that we have no recorded words from God between the time of Aristotle until Jesus came to earth. Four hundred years of God's silence. Aristotle's views ran rampant. Why?

Suddenly Jesus appears. Jesus arrives on earth and teaches about God's Kingdom. Of course there is a lot to Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. However, one thing He did was to give a totally different view of solving these three problems than Aristotle and his cohorts did. I find the Sermon on the Mount to be a fairly direct rebuke of Greek philosophy. 

What are Jesus' answer to these three problems?

1. How do we know? Jesus uses a different word for knowing than the philosophers used. Jesus spoke about "knowing" without observing physical evidence, gnosis. This involves revelation. Words given to us from an unseen source outside ourselves.

2. What should we do? Instead of virtue, Jesus spoke about faith. That is, trusting what we receive from this unseen source of "knowing." Acting on the unction of the Holy Spirit is Jesus' answer to the second problem, not an internal drive and set of principles to pursue virtue.

3. How should we treat each other? Jesus advocates humility and service. Jesus had His harshest words for the moralists. Seeing the provisions and privileges of the Kingdom of Heaven is God's way to work in unity to glorify Himself. Seeking the rights and rewards of a "proper" or lawful path in the physical world is what mankind inherited from Adam.

Jesus did not bring a new set of problems to solve. The Greek philosophers and all that followed from them, including many Christian philosophers, had the right set of problems. Jesus brought a totally different way to solve them. Repent, metanoia, is a call to this different way to solve the same problems.

That is what it means to "be not conformed to the ways of this world (solving problems like Aristotle), but be transformed by the renewing of your mind (solve problems like Jesus)."

They don't teach critical thinking like this in school I don't believe ......  

Good leaders do what?

During these politically divisive times, one of the major ways people attempt to degrade Trump is to accuse him of being pathetic, if not absent, as a leader. His opponents claim he is the "worst President (leader of our nation) in history." Now, this blog is not about politics and certainly not about Trump. It's about what we can learn to recognize and to be an effective leader.

At the center of the criticism is Trump's results in controlling infections and deaths from CV-19 along with an equally critical view of his handling the economy. When looking at a single result to determine the merits of a leader, we miss the complexities in which any leader must lead. For instance, most sensible people, when not being seduced by politics, understand that aggressively shutting down social activity to halt the spread of the virus simultaneously destroys the economy. On the other hand, if commercial activity were allowed to continue as usual (and the US had a great economy going into the virus period), then the virus would likely have dire consequences on public health.

Putting various biases of Trump aside, what would a good leader do? Pick one outcome and let the other create a disaster? If so, which one?

When I was a young man, just getting started in my career, I witnessed something I will never forget. I worked at Vanity Fair (the garment company) as a systems analyst.

There was an interesting business problem Vanity Fair was trying to solve. If they dyed big batches of cloth, the dying and finishing productivity was good, but in-process inventory in sewing plant was too high. To reduce the problem with inventory in sewing, they would dye smaller batches. But then, productivity in the dye plant would suffer.

This went on and on for months and I watched. Being a math geek I pondered, "why don't they optimize the conflict instead of bouncing back and forth trying to accomplish a single objective?" I was getting my first taste of what it meant to balance two significant opposing forces. I was beginning to see what leadership was and was not.

Today I heard financial analysts interviewing business people about the Presidential debate. The mostly liberal media were trying to corner successful business people to support their claim, "Trump is a bad leader and bad for our country." Ironically, the first person they interviewed was Robert (Bob) Johnson, the founder of BTN.

BTN is the first successful TV network designed for Black Americans. Bob is black. Bob is very successful and respected by all business professionals. What do you think he said about Trump and leadership?

Basically he said that the true test of a leader comes from how he/she deals with trade-offs between two conflicting and difficult outcomes. No leader wants people to die, as they have with CV. Nor does a leader want the economy to tank and create hardship for many.

His focus on evaluating a leader is not picking one outcome and judging whether it alone should have been better or worse. He said the leadership issue should be more about how the leader addresses the trade-offs between two opposing forces. 

In other words, how a leader balances and finds the best middle ground determines a leader. In the case of Trump, Johnson knows how Trump is trying to deal with the trade-offs. It may not be perfect. No one can agree what is the right trade-off. But Trump is predictable in seeking trade-offs, and that is what counts in business.

You can agree with Johnson or not on Trump vs Biden, but his point about leadership is important. In fact, I pondered the very same thing 50 years ago and felt the same way.....

Can you be reasonable?

We look at each other and "demand" that others be reasonable. This is how we know what is true, who is right, what is fair. A conclusion is "valid" only when it passes the test of reasonableness. Whether in marriage, as parents, in business, and especially in the public policy arena, we accept what is reasonable and we reject what is not. That's what we do without much consideration of what we are doing.

Did you know that the criteria of "being reasonable" is at the core of philosophy and is one of the major areas of contention between Martin Luther, the author of the Protestant Reformation, and Thomas Acquinas, the first Catholic philosopher. 

The ability to reason was advanced by Plato and Aristotle as the main facility humans had that animals did not. Being able to experience via physical senses multiple data points in the world and inferring a moral principle from this data is innately human. Acquinas believed that by following Aristotle's model of cause and effect we can reason that God exist. Luther took exception. He believed human reasoning could not determine matters of faith. Evidence of God cannot be confirmed through physical senses.   

You may not ever think about what it means to be reasonable, but you build your life on being reasonable all the time. You demand it of others. Isn't that interesting? Yet, you may not even understand whether you or anyone else is actually being reasonable. What is reason based on? If you wish, we can explore what it means to be reasonable. You never know what you might find.

What is reason? The 1828 Webster dictionary says reason is the basis by which we reach or justify a determination or conclusion. In this sense, everyone is reasonable in that they have a way to judge or determine what they conclude. However, is everyone's reason really reasonable?  

Let's examine this question by breaking the process down to its two components: 1) the starting point and 2) the thought path or logic used to get from the starting point to the conclusion.

There is a field of study for the second component, the logical pathway to conclusion. For instance, there are accepted paths of logic, such as "if A = B and B = C, then A = C." There are aspects of the logic process called fallacies, which is drawing a conclusion that violates laws of logic. You can accept these laws or not, but most scholars of reason would agree on the ways in which logic works. Often, if a thought path adheres to the rules of logic, we would agree the conclusion is reasonable. This is what Aristotle and Acquinas basically do. They apply accepted paths of logic to observations to determine what is true.

So, why did Luther vehemently disagree with Aristotle and Acquinas. Luther pointed to the problem of the starting point. In other words, regardless how logical your path is, if you start at the wrong place, your conclusion will not be reasonable. The starting place for Aristotle and Acquinas was never at question by them. They assumed every human has the same built in core assumptions that make them human. This is what psychology and philosophy has spent thousands of years studying.

Luther claimed that this natural human assumption starting point for reason is flawed. This issue of a flawed starting point is found in the doctrine of Total Depravity of man that came with the fall (Adam and Eve's misstep). Luther believed that humans cannot reason things of God because their logic starts from a place that leads them away from God. Luther believed that revelation not reason is the way man concludes the ways of God. Jesus said that he reveals truth, implying man does not find it on their own from observing the world.

Going back to the meaning of reason, which is simply a pathway to reach a conclusion, I agree with Luther's reason that humans cannot be reasonable. They can be logical but they have a flawed starting point. 

However, I have reasoned that humans can be reasonable if the process of thought and emotion follows basic principles of logic applied to an unflawed starting point. My reasoning finds that the starting point is what Luther calls faith. Humans have been given the ability to think and feel about the revealed faith they have received. This is the work of the transformed mind. It seems this is what the historical debate between faith and reason is missing. 

Therefore, I encourage you to refrain from trusting reason from the wrong starting point, but also do not reject the idea of reason when it is logic applied to the right starting point. 

We claim our judgments are reasonable. We demand that others be reasonable, or we reject their judgments. Being reasonable is not so simple, maybe even impossible for some. Yet, I find it reasonable to ponder, "can you be reasonable?"

" he's fearless in his mother's arms"

                                

I was visiting my brother's family at the beach this week. There was a nice sandbar that allowed us to safely take the young children further out into the waves. As the kids got used to the waves "crashing" upon their bodies, they became more and more excited and daring.

The youngest of the 3 is a boy. Of course, he gets more and more aggressive and  daring as he gains confidence. Suddenly out of nowhere, a larger than normal wave comes and knocks him off his feet. He becomes confused, disoriented, and not so daring. He reaches for his mother. She picks him up. He begins to calm down. Once composed and seeing what was happening, he says, "this is really fun."

His wise mom simply says, "he's fearless in his mother's arms." 

I immediately pondered, as I often do, what a great picture of our life in Christ. Why does He repeatedly say, "fear not"? Notice what He does not say. He does not tell us to "be courageous! Be strong although you are afraid." He says "fear not." This is a state of being without fear. This is being fearless.

Like my young grand nephew, his mom didn't say, "no be courageous, stay on your own and fight through this. Be a big boy." She picked him up into her arms, and he became FEARLESS.

That's the Gospel. That is life in the Kingdom. That is "wow worthy". That is worth pondering

a small glimpse of Heaven

Two days have passed since what appeared to be a disaster ended up being a blessing. I've moved through the moment and had time to reflect. It's actually quite a story that came upon me without any notice. Would you like to hear about it? Stay tuned. Like me, I hope you can see a small glimpse of Heaven in a situation that should have been an unjust disaster.

After days and weeks of preparing to move from Upstate SC to Auburn, Ala, we had made progress on plans to pack, sell, give away, and toss household goods. We then closed flawlessly on the house, which carried it's own set of stress. It took much of the day to load the truck, using a crew I had hired locally, hoping they would work out well. They did beautifully. The truck was so full I had to give the loading crew things like a bicycle, lawn mower, yard tools, etc. that I wanted to take but had to leave. The cleaning ladies came, made the house pristine, took away the last set of garbage and more household goods that I couldn't take. That all went well. After all of this effort, I got to where I saw my household goods as just stuff.

The biggest challenge (I thought) laid ahead. I must drive a fully loaded 26 ft rental truck 300 miles. This part of the move brought on worry and prayer from most of my family. I got up early Sat morning to beat the traffic in Atlanta. Five hours later I arrived at the storage facility in Auburn to unload the truck into storage units I had thoughtfully procured to store household items until we move into the new house in Dec.

The part of my plan I had the most confidence in was unloading in Auburn. I had contacted a moving company that had moved friends before and came highly recommended. I contacted the owner when I arrived by text, and he replied, "be there in 20 minutes." Whew, this journey is almost over. The plan had come together.

This is when the day deteriorated quickly and profoundly. As I waited out front of storage building for the mover, I noticed a young black guy walking toward me. No one spoke at first, then I asked,"are you here to help unload this truck?" He smiled and replied, "yes." I then asked the obvious, "are you alone?" His reply sent shivers down my spine.

"I read a hour ago that David (the head of the moving company) had put an ad out on Craig's List for help to unload a truck in Auburn today. I guess I'm the only one that has taken him up on the offer." There was no hand truck, no experienced crew, just one young strong black guy. We had never seen each other and were seemingly as different as two people could be.

For some reason, none of that mattered. We had a full truck and an empty storage facility and a job to reverse that. That's what brought us together, a mutual task, a shared challenge. There was no talk about what I would pay and if he was even capable of the job ahead. We just started unloading the truck. Auburn, Ala in August. It was hot and muggy. We didn't even know each other's name for the first hour. Gail came to help where she could. There were 2 old white privileged people and one young black adult, who worked from day to day to live. 

We all recognized, we just had a job to do.

There were difficult moments, like a very large and heavy TV chest that was taller than the door to the truck and the storage room. It took us many tries and 30 minutes to finally get it in place in storage. The greater the challenge, the more the three of us came together. ALL WE HAD WAS TRUST. No one questioned anything.

Through the chatting around the work, we found that we had gone to the same schools in Montgomery (many years apart). His aunts, uncles and parents had gone to the same high school as I did. We relished talking about what we had in common and didn't notice what was different. Sometimes he would make a suggestion on how to solve the problem ahead and I would subordinate to his lead. Other times it was the exact opposite. No pride, no fear, no angst, no pecking order. Just 2 old white privileged folks and a young black guy trying to make life work.

As we saw we were close to finishing, I said, "would you like to get paid in cash or by check?" He said, "cash please." There was no mention of amount. The four hours and the job were not a transaction but a shared job to do. When he was not looking, I asked Gail to go closest ATM and get $300 in cash. She returned about the time we were completing the job. The main feeling of the moment was, "we did it." Together, we shook hands and acknowledged a "job well done."

I then said, "is $300 sufficient for your work?" His eyes got real big, but not as big as his smile. He felt so blessed. I think that's more than he expected by 2 or 3 times. His smile blessed me and Gail. Three people, one was a stranger. We only had trust to hold us together. It was enough.

He was blessed by a reward that was based on the generosity of the reward giver, way more than he thought he deserved. We were blessed by his smile. The thought of the injustice of being let down by the moving company was not even on my mind anymore.

Maybe this is how God puts unexpected, spontaneous small glimpses of Heaven in our life? What caught us by surprise and looked insurmountable, a situation that seem unjust at first to all of us, became a blessing because of trust.    

God calls us all to be faithful, not fair, not productive, not capable, not anything, but faithful when nothing appears right to our eyes .....

her eyes said it all

"How can eyes talk?" we might ask. Its not uncommon to mix the senses to understand how we receive insights from others and the world around us. Most of us have said at one time or another, "I can see it in your eyes." Eyes have a way to tell us things that words cannot express, don't they?

Such it was over 15 years ago as I watched mother struggle with the horrific disease called dementia. What an injustice it was to her that nature was robbing her of all she had gained over almost 80 years. She so feared Alzheimer that she would try to convince the doctor she had Parkinson disease as she felt the symptoms coming on. Everyone who knew her shared the sense of unfairness she must have felt. She had just cared for dad in his late life and looked forward to returning to her own active life after his passing. 

Toward the end I remember sharing with family and friends that I no longer visited with mother, I simply visited her. It was during one of those visits, late into the disease's thievery, where I saw something amazing. It seemed as if God wanted me to know mother in even a deeper way, a way only her eyes could tell me. She was completely disabled. Couldn't talk, eat or even respond to the question, "how are you?" She could only sit in the wheelchair and look up into the air. To the casual observer, it was just the way her head hung as she could not control her posture. She seemed totally detached and unaware. She no longer could interact with me or anyone, she had nothing to offer the world, but more interestingly, it became apparent to me she no longer needed anything from the world.

It was in this state that mankind would consider her useless, less than a person, worthless and lost to all things and people around her. Yet, it was in this moment her eyes said to me, "I am fully in God's presence, nothing in this world distracts me from my time with Him, my soul is enjoying God like crazy." What seemed to the world an injustice for mom, was right in God's sweet spot. Her identity had moved from a white woman in Alabama in the late 20th century to a child of the King. It wasn't that she had not been God's child, but it was so fully apparent to her. This is what she told me with her eyes.

This could just remain a story of one woman, whom I witnessed God transform her identity and bring fully unto Himself. If we stop and pay attention, there is a larger lesson here. After all, that's what life in this world is for. This world is finite, temporary and visible. God desires to form us and inform us, not leave us in our social identity. God is always pointing us to our identity in the Heavenlies. Christians live there now but get too distracted by how the world defines us to see it.

Like unwelcome disease, in some strange way the injustices of this world are not as much a problem for man to fix than they are opportunities for God to use. He's plenty capable of handling anything us puny humans think we must do. The injustices of nature and bigotry and bullying and seeing people as non-people are right in God's sweet spot. Its in these moments that we see more clearly God's divine plan. The fact that injustice on a human plane disgusts us is good. WHAT? How can injustice be good for us? It's in seeing the terrible aspects of injustice that we can more fully appreciate the cross. The terrible taste of injustice left in our mouth from what we see it in this world points us to the most grievous injustice of all, Jesus willful march to the cross. Through the lens of the unfairness of disease or racial injustice in the world, we see in the injustice of the cross the loving hand of God. We fall down. We fall deeper in love with Him. Our hearts are broken and turned toward Him.

What greater step can we all take but to move past the distractions of this world because its not fair and doesn't work well to see the outstretched arms of a loving God? 

My visits to mother were never the same again. I no longer pitied her. I no longer looked with disdain at the injustice of her disease. I envied her. I saw my mother closer to her Father, and I longed for the time I too would not be so distracted by the things of this world. Injustice looks terrible and in man's eyes it is. Yet, injustice can be a wonderful thing too, especially when it ushers into my soul the song, "when I survey the wondrous cross."

Her eyes said it all ....

Who is driving the justice bus?

 Ever since I heard the words, "justice is man's preeminent concern," in a Ph D Org Psychology class, I have been curious about its implication for Christians. The field of psychology is very clear on the meaning of justice. It is based on social exchange, which is the basic human need for balanced exchange or reciprocity. I researched justice in writings of antiquity and found the same idea. It's been the same forever, until now. The current narratives on justice are way off base. No social justice advocate demands reciprocity. The justice bus has left the station claiming those who have not, should get more and those with a lot, should give away what they have to those who have not. So, my first issue was how meaningless the public cry for social justice was in terms of what justice means historically. 

Of course this bothered me some, but not near as much as watching the Christian church try to catch up with the justice bus and become its driver. I had been quite watchful of how justice was represented by the church and worldview ministries. The epiphany I had when I heard the words about mankind's obsession with justice was, "that's why man cannot embrace grace." You see, justice is human nature seeking equilibrium, grace is a disequilibrium where God's justice does not lead to giving man what he deserves. The human condition cannot handle disequilibrium. Jesus emptied Himself of His privilege to be equal to God, humbled Himself by taking on the form of man, and going to the cross (unjustly, for He did nothing wrong) to take care of God's justice. God is still just, but He found a way through His love to satisfy His justice.

This is where I stay in hot water with the institutional church and most Christians, who tend to see justice the same way society does.

Man's deeply seated idea of justice just doesn't fit with grace. In fact man's desire to produce justice is at the heart of the fall. I blogged about this in "and the serpent said." I can't let this go for some reason. I see it as core to why Western society doesn't see the church any differently than the secular world. In fact they see the church behind when it comes to justice. That may be why church conferences lead with the theme, "the church has fallen behind in the cultural battle against injustice."

The church wants to drive society's justice bus?

Here's what I do that makes most Christians, especially pastors, shun me. I just ask questions about soundbites popular in both secular and Christian narratives. Like this

“do justice” (is this one of the 10 commandments? Where does Jesus mention justice? Is justice a ‘fruit of the Spirit’?)

 "large swaths of the church still do not see ‘doing justice’ as part of their calling as individual believers."  Tim Keller on Biblical justice - do you realize that God's justice was compelled to destroy Babylon (secular society)? Is that what "doing justice" is?  

“all men are created equal” (in what way?)

“that’s not fair” (why should it be?)

“fair share” (who determines ‘fair’?)

“what’s right about rights?”  (where do rights come from?)

“what’s right, what’s wrong?” (who is the judge?)

Asking these questions about oft used cliches can begin to introduce a view of justice from God's perspective. To begin to move others to a Kingdom view of justice (starting with the church), we can go see what the Bible actually says. Here's a few examples:

And the serpent said .. “you can be like God. You can be the judge of right and wrong.” Isn't this known as 'The Great Mistake,' which leads to spiritual death?

Jesus said, “Those that are put down and put out by the world because they identify with me are so very fortunate (blessed – makarios).”  Where’s the justice in this? Didn’t Jesus live a life of injustice?

Paul said, “Do not fashion yourself after the world’s system but have a transformed identity. This is your spiritual service”   wow, you mean identity transformation gets my Garden of Eden privileges back?

I can spend so much time on this topic (and have actually through many blogs). The bottom line is not that the secular world is so confused because it misapplies its greatest obsession. It's that Christians and their church fail to honor the Cross and the grace behind it. The Christian church buys in to the secular narrative (with a little religious twist) and distorts what justice really means. 

Here's a summary of my narrative on justice that I wish were taken to the world by the church:

“God alone is just. Inheriting my identity from Adam & Eve condemns me forever. I deserve it. I want to be THE judge. I'm obsessed with 'doing justice.' I’m doomed. That’s His justice. We are ALL CREATED EQUAL in this regards, no matter how feeble or fabulous the flesh is. It is God’s mercy and grace (agape love) on the cross that privileges me against all odds. My righteousness (God’s verdict of approval) is imputed on me from Jesus’ righteousness (God’s just response to His Son’s perfection). 

To put man in charge of God’s justice and make justice achievable by man’s pursuit diminishes the wonder of the Cross. My generosity, kindness, patience, mercy and such extended to others is not ‘doing justice’, but a natural response flowing from an identity in Christ."

Righteousness is the action of the judge (God) on my behalf not my actions on behalf of the judge (God).

My righteousness or what many think of as "doing justice" is “necessarily” appropriating God’s action that belongs to me (Luther's idea of 'necessity').

What do you think the main stream media would do with this? It can't be any worse than what they do to Christians who are trying to drive the secular justice bus.

Maybe you can get off that bus and carry the cross to the world? You might get a "WOW" rather than a yawn.