The Paradox of Generosity

 

BOOK REVIEW

The Paradox of Generosity: Giving We Receive, Grasping We Lose

by Christian Smith & Hilary Davidson

This book reports the results of a carefully constructed sociological study--including both quantitative and qualitative research. In the nine different categories of life investigated, generous people had greater scores of well-being—sometimes markedly so.

The conclusion of the book states: “In offering our time, money, and energy in service of others’ well-being, we enhance our own well-being as well” (224). As a sociological study the book is first and foremost an argument with research results to back up that argument. You may think, “makes sense to me. I do not need to be convinced.” Still, there are reasons to read the book. Even if you do not find the thesis surprising you may be surprised at the width and depth of the positive impact of generosity in the giver’s life. It motivates one to generosity, but also underscores the value of encouraging generosity in those we counsel, teach and disciple. It is not a “how-to” book, but it does provide some insights on how to increase people’s level of generosity.
 
The look into people’s lives is reason enough to read the book. The stories and examples from their qualitative research allows one to enter into the lives of the generous and the un-generous. The authors use short real-life examples throughout the book, but they also have a few long in-depth case studies of generous and un-generous people. There is much to reflect on.

I regularly think back to the description of one un-generous family—“Doug and Michelle Arnold” (120-133). What especially stood out to me was the intentionality of their ungenerosity. It is not that they happened to be ungenerous, they had principled reasons for their stance. In their logic everyone should take care of their own needs. Doug and Michelle did not ask for help, and reasoned that others should do the same—work and take care of their problems. The Arnolds made an exception for natural disasters--occasionally giving small donations. And it is not just in relation to money, but generous actions as well. They live as autonomously from their neighbors as they can—live and let live.
 
Doug and Michelle openly acknowledge that their purpose in life is to make enough money to have “the good life.” According to them the good life is having financial security and enough money to support a lifestyle of leisure with modest luxuries and perhaps a weekend home by the beach. Therefore for them it is counterintuitive to give either time or resources to others. Yet as they talk about their lives there is little sense of shalom or thriving. They make a combined $115,000, but the authors observed that the Arnolds, “clearly live in a subjective state of relative deprivation, imbued with a constant sense that there is not enough money for the things they need and want” (129).
 
The question that keeps coming up when I think of this couple is: how might I reach out evangelistically to them? I mean that in the traditional sense of inviting them to a relationship with Jesus, but also in a broader sense of the gospel—good news. They are so far from living as Jesus did. How might I invite them to follow the ways of Jesus and become people of generosity who love their neighbors? I ask that question out of concern for them—so that they may experience some of the well-being this book describes, but also out of concern for our society. The way they are living their lives is not good for them, their neighbors, nor our society as a whole.

Greed vs Generosity

When I first lived in Honduras the extreme poverty of my neighbors changed the way I thought about normal middle class lifestyles in the United States. What before had seemed appropriate now seemed extravagant. I challenged people in my church in New York to spend less and share more with those in need. I had little success in moving people to cut back and give—probably in large part because of my bounded group religiosity that caused judgmentalism to spill out of my exhortations to give more.

When I started teaching at the seminary I decide to take a different approach.

Rather than center on the needs of the poor, I have focused on the alienating impact of Mammon and consumerism and how Christian communities can help individuals experience greater freedom from these alienating influences. And, in general, my approach has been more invitational than confrontational. My thinking is: people in the United States and Canada suffer under the burden of these alienating forces—offer them a way to ease the burden.

I am still in favor of doing that, but two things recently combined to lead me to think we must do more—including some confrontation. I think we must become more active in confronting greed and efficiency as supreme values.

Again, Honduras moved me to confrontation. Sadly Honduras is a very troubled country today. In recent years it has had the worst homicide rate in the world. Drug trafficking and gangs are commonly mentioned as the reason for the high murder rate, but it is more than that, including: corruption, high inequality, and a very weak judicial system. I could tell many stories: extortion, murder for not meeting an extortion payment, people robbed on buses, government leaders embezzling, corrupt police, gang violence. One story especially moved me when we last visited Honduras.

We were in a tiny village, in the mountains, an hour’s drive from a paved road. We enjoyed the warmth of the family’s Christian hospitality, the music of the stream flowing by, and the beauty of verdant mountainsides. Gerardo told us how much he loved living and working there. To me, it felt like a haven from the nation’s problems; I asked if that was the case. Gerardo replied that until two years ago it had been a tranquil place and they enjoyed good relations with their neighbors. But then people began losing cattle to thieves. And not just one or two cows, but ten or fifteen at a time. I asked, “how could someone sell the cattle if they were branded?” Gerardo replied, “excellent question.” They should not be able to get past the checkpoint near the closest city, let alone sell them to a slaughter house. Obviously people with power and authority are involved. They suspect a coronel. Gerardo told us that recently a young man was murdered in their village because he knew too much about how it was happening. Gerardo’s father had very recently had ten cattle stolen and they did not report it. They feared that the ones they report it to might actually be involved in the crime, and might come after them. I wondered, how can that coronel sleep peacefully at night? What drives this? The answer is a word that came up repeatedly during our trip.

Hondurans did talk about drug traffickers and gangs, but a repeated theme that kept coming up as we talked to people was greed. They saw greed as a root problem.

I left with questions:  what is the church doing about greed? What could the church in Honduras do?  What is the church here in North America doing to confront greed?

The second contributing factor happened a few weeks later when I read a book by Lisa Hamilton, Deeply Rooted: Unconventional Farmers in the Age of Agribusiness. It tells the stories of three farmers: a dairy farmer in East Texas, a cattle rancher in New Mexico, and two brothers on a farm in North Dakota. In one sense each of them is a radical, in another sense not that radical at all. They would have looked pretty normal fifty years ago. They are resisting more industrialized models of farming.

Like any farmer or any business person; they cannot ignore the bottom line. They seek to make money. Yet, all three of the farmers in the book have a higher value than making money. Greed does not drive them. Rather they are driven by concern for the land, their families, people who work for them, their communities, and people who eat their food. Rather than the most efficient way of doing things they bring in other evaluative factors. The book contrasts them with others farmers with very different practices, and different priorities. The combination of greed and technique produced distortions that are bad for the earth, bad for those working on the farms, bad for the communities, bad for those eating what they produce, and unsustainable.

It is not just Honduras, and definitely not just farming. The chemistry combining greed and efficiency as supreme value is dangerous and all too common in our society. The destructive impact of that chemistry hurts many. Just one example. Think of the financial crisis of 2008. What was at the root? Greed that utilized and trusted in efficiency/technique ended up hurting millions.

With my Honduras experience fresh in mind I put down Hamilton's book, and said to myself. “I need to start talking about this in class.”  Part of the church being salt and light in society is reflecting seriously on how to lessen greed, and lessen the almost total commitment to efficiency.

And I have. I tell these stories and exhort students to act against greed. 

I have, and I will continue to challenge students to take a stand against greed. But I am thinking that perhaps more important than confronting greed is promoting generosity.

If generosity increases, greed will decrease. Clearly, lessening greed and increasing generosity is good for others. In the absence of greed Gerardo’s family would still have all their cattle. Yet, right in line with a central paradigm of the Discipleship and Ethics course, ethics as gift, God calls us to give not just out of love for others, but also out of love for us. Last summer I read a book by sociologists Christian Smith and Hillary Davidson called The Paradox of Generosity: Giving We Receive, Grasping We Lose. The title communicates the main point of the book. It is not, however, just a reflection or a sharing of wisdom. The book reports results of a carefully constructed sociological study based on both quantitative and qualitative research. In the nine different categories of life investigated, generous people had greater scores of well-being—sometimes markedly so. The conclusion of the book states: “In offering our time, money, and energy in service of others’ well-being, we enhance our own well-being as well” (224).

So I encourage you, as an act of love, exhort others to turn away from greed and practice generosity. And perhaps one of the best ways of moving others to generosity is to increase our own generosity.

Let us be open to how God’s Spirit may lead us to generosity of time, money or possessions today and in the days to come.

Busyness vs. The Disciplined Pursuit of Less

A new year invites reflection. What to change, what to stop doing, what to start?

For some, becoming more active, adding something new would be life-giving. Many, however, are overwhelmed, burdened with too much to do. Being too busy hinders us from living as the people God created us to be. For that reason I included a class on “busyness” for the first eight years I taught Discipleship and Ethics. It felt, and feels, important. Yet I dropped it from the course.

Why?

The simplest answer is that there were other topics I wanted to include. Something had to come out. Combined with that I had the sense that if we worked at the other themes in the course we would address many of the factors that contribute to busyness today. Yet, perhaps, more honestly, the reason I pulled it from the course is that I never figured out how to teach it. The class on freedom from busyness was the one I changed most. From small tweaks to radical overhauls I don’t think I ever taught it the same way twice. Perhaps I gave up.

I think, however, an even deeper reason I dropped it is that I felt uncomfortable addressing the topic. How could I call for change in an area in which I was so burdened myself? My sense was, on this topic, I was in worse shape than most of my students. I do not mean to imply that I no longer struggled with Mammon or technique or others themes from the course. But at least in all the others I could point to progress. In 2006 I had little sense of progress in the burden of living with the sense that there was more to do each day and each week than I was able to do.

I have made some progress since 2006, yet it continues to be the area in which I struggle the most—feel the greatest lack of shalom. What progress I have made comes from weaving together various threads: journaling, therapy, spiritual disciplines, talking to friends, saying “no” more often. In this blog I will share one thread I found helpful last year.

Pursuing the Essential

A former student, Kristin Fast, recommended the book, Essentialism: The Disciplined Pursuit of Less. The author, Greg McKeown, contrasts two types of people that he calls Non-Essentialists and Essentialists. A Non-Essentialist commits to virtually everything without exploring. An Essentialist explores more options, but commits to less . . . "distinguishes the vital few from the trivial many” (21, 48). What follows is not so much a book review--I skipped sections and skimmed much of the book. Rather, I offer a few insights and quotes I gleaned from the book that provide helpful tools for dealing with the burden of having too much to do.

If our brain is like a search engine, “good opportunity” will bring up many options. A more advanced search asks three questions: “What do I feel deeply inspired by?” “What am I particularly talented at?” and “What meets a significant need in the world?” (22).

“There are three deeply entrenched assumptions we must conquer to live the way of the Essentialist: ‘I have to,’ ‘It’s all important,’ and I can do both.’ ... To embrace the essence of Essentialism requires we replace these false assumptions with three core truths: ‘I choose to,’ ‘Only a few things really matter,’ and ‘I can do anything but not everything” (31).

“The faster and busier things get, the more we need to build thinking time into our schedule. . . When did you last take time out of your busy day simply to sit and think?” – not just a few minutes to think over the day’s to-do list, or zoning out in a meeting thinking about a project (68).

“[The] non-Essentialist avoids saying no to avoid feeling social awkwardness and pressure. . . [An] Essentialist  dares to say no firmly, resolutely and gracefully” (137). How?

- Separate the decision from the relationship – denying the request is not the same as denying the person (137).

- “Focus on the trade-off. The more we think about what we are giving up when we say yes to someone, the easier it is to say no” (138).

- “Make peace with the fact that saying ‘no’ often requires trading popularity for respect” (138).

McKeown presents the analogy of a camp counselor who put the slowest hiker at the front and worked to help him go faster (lighten his pack, encourage him)—something I did as a camp counselor. The idea being that any little improvement you can make to the slowest hiker will allow the whole group to get there sooner. “Essentialists don’t default to band-aid solutions. Instead of looking for the most obvious or immediate obstacles, they look for the ones slowing down progress. They ask, ‘What is getting in the way of achieving what is essential?’” (187). Piling on many quick-fix solutions vs. removing obstacles to progress.

“If we create a routine that enshrines the essentials, we will begin to execute them on autopilot.” Rather than dedicating lots of energy to prioritizing every day and fighting to do essentials, initial energy is used to create the routine (187).

The Non-Essentialist’s mind is spinning, stressing about the past and worrying about the future. The Essentialist focuses on the present, what is important right now, enjoys the moment (218).

After a day of leading a seminar McKeown returned to his room. “I felt a sudden pull in a million directions. Everything around me was a reminder of all the things I could be doing: check my e-mail, listen to messages, read a book I felt obliged to read, prepare the presentation for a few weeks from now, record interesting ideas that had grown out of the day’s experiences, and more. It wasn’t just the sheer number of things that felt overwhelming, it was the familiar stress of many tasks vying for top billing at the same time. As I felt the anxiety and tension rise I stopped. I knelt down. I closed my eyes and asked, “What is important now?” After a moment of reflection I realized that until I knew what was important right now, what was important right now was to figure out what was important right now!” (He ended up journaling about his day, connecting with his family, and get things in place for the next day) (221).

May you and I in this year ahead have the wisdom to discern the essential from the non-essential, and in the security that comes from resting in God’s loving embrace may we have the courage to say “no” to the non-essential.

I Once Was Lost

 

Book Review:

I Once was Lost: What Postmodern Skeptics Taught Us About Their Path to Jesus
By Don Everts and Doug Schaupp

There is much to critique about many evangelistic approaches. In my first months as a campus minister with Inter Varsity Christian Fellowship at Syracuse University I did a lot of critiquing of the methods of other Christian groups on campus. Then a mentor said to me, "fine Mark, you have good critiques of their way of evangelizing, but what are you doing? Do you have an alternative approach you are actually practicing?"

This is a book that helps me imagine alternatives to the methods I critiqued.

The pragmatic side of me loved this book. It is not just theory; it contains a lot of “how to’s” illustrated with examples. The part of me that has grown skeptical of formulaic “how to” lists did not react too strongly because the practical emphasis of the book is rooted in a very different paradigm of evangelism. In large part that is because it is based on careful observation of and listening to people who have converted. I had hoped for thicker narratives of these people. The subtitle of the book mislead me, but actually it is exactly right. The book is not so much about postmodern skeptics, but it is the lessons learned from them. The thesis of the book is that “one trick” evangelism does not work well because it treats all people as if they are in the same place. 

In essence, for example, it is of no use engaging a person as if they are a seeker if they are not even curious about Jesus. I thought the first threshold was especially important, moving from distrust of Christians to trust a Christian. The other four thresholds were: 2. Moving from complacent to curious, 3. Moving from closed to being open to change in their life, 4. Moving from meandering to seeking, and 5. Crossing the threshold of the kingdom itself.

I appreciate that they emphasize the importance of an actual call to take this last step. Many, I think, are hesitant to make an explicit call. In part out of reaction against the “one trick” packaged evangelistic techniques, and in part because of how it goes against the grain of our tolerance-as-supreme-virtue-society. Yet, if we are going to move people from fuzzy to centered they do need to turn to the center at some point. Calling for conversion feels much different in their approach because it is not seen as the goal of every conversation with a non-believer. If the person is only at threshold two, don’t make the call of threshold 5. It is a short book (132 pages), easy to read, many illustrative stories, and includes not just description of the stages, but also suggestions on how to engage non-Christians at each stage.

On one hand, by emphasizing process the book takes away a lot of the un-natural, uncomfortable, alienating feel of evangelism. On the other hand by identifying thresholds and calling Christians to work to lovingly help people move from one threshold to the next it maintains the evangelistic imperative that often seems to get lost when the emphasis is on process rather than on one-time contact evangelism focused on “praying the prayer.”

How to Invite People to Shift from a Fuzzy Paradigm to a Centered Approach

Thomas Bergler went to the white board and invited students in a class at a Christian college to list some traits of spiritual maturity. They were very resistant—said things like:  “nobody is perfect” or, “to make a list like that would be the same thing as being judgmental” (Mars Hill Audio, Vol. 115).

He had encountered what I described in my previous blog as a fuzzy group approach. Why is there an increase in a fuzzy approach today?

In part it is a reaction to the problems of a bounded approach. If strict lines of judgmental exclusion are the problem, then erasing them is an obvious solution. As one student wrote this fall, “One of the things that I had not thought much about was just how easy it can be to react to a bounded group approach by becoming fuzzy.” A fuzzy church approach, however, is not just a product of people fleeing from bounded churches.  Many in society see tolerance as the supreme virtue, and individualistic moral relativism has increased. The combination of these two means that many Christians are pulled toward a fuzzy approach, and many new Christians bring fuzzy group thinking with them as they begin life in Christian community.

Although a fuzzy church does provide an antidote to judgmentalism and exclusion, it creates new problems. When the supreme concern is to not label anyone else as wrong, or “out,” ethics and the community itself quickly become ill-defined. It may feel loving, but to truly love someone will, at times, mean saying “no,” setting limits, or calling them to something. As another student this fall observed, “From a fuzzy approach, my allowing [my friend] to behave in any way she saw fit neglected to name and address the unhealthy decisions she was making.” As I now teach and have written a centered approach provides an alternative to the bounded approach, and also avoids the weaknesses of a fuzzy approach.

The question of this blog post is: how do we help people to shift from a fuzzy approach to a centered church approach?

Not an easy question for me to answer. It is not my reality. I grew up drinking from the wells of modernity, not postmodernity. Moving from bounded to centered is something I have experienced. I get that in the inner core of my being. What I know about moving from fuzzy to centered I have learned from others—including some of you. I have addressed this question in class three times, and done it differently each time. I am still working on this. So I share these ideas on how to aid this shift with the hope that they will be helpful to you, but also with the hope that you will share your insights with me—add to them, suggest revisions or corrections.

Love

As Jesus so powerfully models, a loving embrace most effectively erases the oppressive lines of a bounded approach and heals its wounds. It is also fundamental for helping a person step from fuzzy toward centered. Why? Because a fuzzy-approach-person, a person who holds tolerance as supreme virtue, is very wary of ethics being used as a means of judging and condemning. Unfortunately many churches, especially evangelical churches, are seen as exactly that--judging and condemning. So in response to this reality we must go out of our way to show the opposite. Bruxy Cavey urges us to practice aggressive grace, front-load acceptance as Jesus did. Love is central in making clear to people that we are not a bounded church, and also must be the seasoning in all that is done.

Have a stance of humility, practice confession and apology

A bounded approach exudes a sense of superiority—we are right, you are wrong. A valuable way of undermining that and lowering the defenses of a person embracing relativism in reaction to boundedness is to be humble and practice confession and apology. (For a couple of great stories that display this point, and more depth on the previous point see my online lecture.)

Strengthen the Center - Work to create trust in and passion about the center.

Introduce them to Jesus.  

Faith depends on who we follow, and that depends on who we love. Believing in a person--having utter confidence in someone--creates a very different set of expectations than believing in 'beliefs.' For Christians, faith means cleaving to the person, the God-man, Jesus Christ, joining a pilgrim journey with other lovers and following him into the world." Kendra Creasy Dean (Almost Christian: What the Faith of Our Teenagers is Telling the American Church)

Promote the practice of spiritual disciplines to strengthen relationship with the center.    

Instruction about God’s ways, commands, the Creator’s “grain of the universe”:  A bounded group has rules, laws and commands. Therefore, to reframe them in a centered way is valuable. In the case of the fuzzy group, someone steeped in individualistic moral relativism there may not be commands there to reframe. Therefore, we must teach the content of the center. But it is not just informing, giving the information about God’s ways…

Paint a vision of the Kingdom of God, feed their imaginations of a different way of living:  Think of the well example from Australia. What is pulling? What is drawing them in, shaping them? But it is not just painting the vision; it is also important to call, to invite participation in the vision

Intentionally call people to participate in God’s mission:  This is a significant step away from fuzzy relativism. To be FOR something is a key step toward also recognizing some other paths are destructive.

Call to conversion and repentance:  In a centered approach the key move is to turn toward the center. A fuzzy group does not have a center.  It implies that the difference between two alternatives is subjective and personal preference. To turn to Jesus is to turn away from some things. Fuzzy group people very likely will resist, or at least be surprised by this. To do this in a centered way, however, rather than a bounded way will help lower resistance. The character of conversion is different in a centered approach: not a judgmental “We are right, you are wrong” as much as “come and join us in this way.” BUT it is conversion. The character of it is different, but still there is a sense of calling from a path judged to be negative for the person and others.

NOTE ON LANGUAGE: A centered church must embrace and practice the concept of conversion and repentance, but we do not necessarily need to use these words which will set off alarms for a fuzzy person. Look at this example from Bob Hill preaching in a mainline liberal context. Many in his audience are in the fuzzy/relativisitic category. What do you observe about how he calls for conversion without using the word? From a sermon on Mark 1:14-20:

“To lay hold of faith, you may just have to turn.  You may have to leave the nets, or leave the nest.  To lay hold of the future you have to let go of the past.  To lay hold of life we may need to summon the courage to leave.  To leave the inherited for the invisible.  To leave the general for the particular.  To leave existential drift for personal decision.  To leave the individual for the communal.  To leave renting for ownership.  To leave auditing for registration. (Some of us have been auditing the course on Christianity long enough.  It’s time to register, buy the books, pay tuition, take the course for credit, and get a grade!)  To leave engagement for marriage. . . [it] takes courage to turn. Faith, as human response, is a decision, a choice, that inevitably includes some risk.  As D. Bonhoeffer wrote on this passage, ‘When Christ calls a man he bids him come and die.’” Robert Hill, Marsh Chapel, Boston University, 1/25/15

Ethics

Now, building on all of the above, we turn to the direct work on ethics and behavior—how to do this with people who have a fuzzy approach?

Be intentional about character and virtue formation:  This is helpful because it does not trigger a fuzzy person’s resistance; it is not language/command based. How is it developed, promoted? It is: shaped by stories of character and virtue, by observing others, through repeated practice of virtuous actions (examples: service projects, intentional invitation, inclusion and embrace of outsiders) by affirming and thus reinforcing displays of character and virtuous action, and through rituals that highlight and celebrate virtuous action (examples: footwashing, offering, passing the peace). Not to mean we abandon commands….

State imperatives, language of exhortation that describes some behaviors as right or better than others, in a centered way:  Avoid or refram problematic language, including words like the one I just used: “right.” Rather than “right” and “wrong”: helpful, hurtful, alienating, life-giving, inappropriate.

Provide direct teaching about the downsides of individualistic moral relativism and tolerance as supreme virtue.

 Challenge people to reflect on what is lost, and point out that tolerance as supreme virtue is not really honoring or valuing people. The “you think what you want, I will think what I want” approach lacks true engagement and respect. It communicates that the other person’s ideas are not worth paying attention to.

Provide direct teaching about a Centered approach and how it differs from bounded and fuzzy.

Practice and thus model a centered approach.

To return to where we began, the character of the church is most important. It is not so much talking about naming and a centered approach as living it. People will see and feel the difference. Create a climate of loving acceptance; model disagreeing respectfully with others within and outside of group; and practice loving confrontation in a centered way (Gal. 6:1-5).

What are ways you might put some of this into practice?

What might you add to the list?

Revise or change?

As you work at this please let me know what you learn and what would be helpful for me to know as I continue to teach and write about this challenge.

Lost in Transition

Book Review

Lost in Transition: The Dark Side of Emerging Adulthood

by Christian Smith

Sociologist Christian Smith and collaborators did in-depth interviews with more than 200 teenagers and published Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers. Seven years later his team did follow-up interviews and published two books: Souls in Transition: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of Emerging Adults and Lost in Transition: The Dark Side of Emerging Adulthood.

The latter book paints a disturbing picture of the results of hyper individualism, consumerism and moral relativism. The book focuses on five areas: confused moral reasoning, routine intoxication, materialistic life goals, regrettable sexual experiences, and disengagement from civic and political life. It is the book that awoke me to the need to address not only bounded group religiosity, but also its opposite—a fuzzy approach. I encourage you to read the book with an openness to how the Spirit may awaken you to new initiatives and approaches called forth by the realities presented in the book.

The book displays the inability of many emerging adults to articulate moral justification for their actions. I agree with some critics who state that Smith may have confused the ability to articulate a moral position with the ability to practice a moral ethic. Recall the villagers of Le Chambon in Lest Innocent Blood be Shed, who when asked why they took such risky actions to save Jews from the Nazis, had little to say beyond, “how could we have done otherwise?” Moral reasoning is not the only, nor necessarily the key reason we act as we do. Narratives shape us; we imitate those we look up to; and we are shaped by cues of those around us. So, in terms of this website, to say that someone cannot offer a moral argument for something does not necessarily mean they practice a fuzzy group approach to ethics. To be able to coherently defend a moral position is of value, and I share Christian Smith’s concern over the erosion of this ability. But I am not persuaded it is the central issue he makes it.

Nevertheless, the book is important and valuable. It takes us into the lives of many young adults, and through their own words they graphically portray many destructive and painful results of a fuzzy group approach to life. Read it to get a feel for and better understand those living out of this approach, and to sense the imperative of offering a life centered on Jesus as an alternative.

Bounded or Fuzzy - What is the Problem Today?

I recently read Lost in Transition: The Dark Side of Emerging Adulthood by Christian Smith.

The in-depth interviews that sociologist Smith and his collaborators did with 230 young adults paint a disturbing picture of the results of hyper individualism, consumerism and moral relativism. The book focuses on five areas: confused moral reasoning, routine intoxication, materialistic life goals, regrettable sexual experiences, and disengagement from civic and political life.

It caught me up short.

I thought, “Here I am providing a solution to bounded group religiosity and many of my students have been absorbing society’s emphasis on tolerance as supreme virtue their whole lives. Their problem is not a bounded approach; they think like a fuzzy group.”

A bounded group creates a list of essential characteristics that determine whether a person belongs to that group or not. The group has a clear boundary line.

A fuzzy group has no clear sense of demands or expectations. In one sense a fuzzy group is the total opposite of a bounded group – one has very clear sense of in and out, the other is very unclear. With time there may be no distinction between those who belong and those who do not. 

Although Paul Hiebert (from whom I borrowed these ideas) included descriptions of all three approaches-- bounded, fuzzy and centered--I had only taught and written about bounded and centered.  Bounded, not fuzzy, was the problem I had encountered in churches, and centered was the solution. Reading Smith left me unsure of that approach.

I considered totally retooling, continuing to use material on bounded groups in contexts like Honduras or Ethiopia, but not in Fresno. Yet, almost immediately I thought of students who, like thirsty plants, drank up my teaching on Galatians and related it directly to current or recent experiences in churches of bounded character. Clearly there is still a need to proclaim freedom from bounded group religiosity in the North American context.

So, I did retool, but it was not by talking about fuzzy groups rather than bounded. Starting in this spring I presented all three approaches--bounded, fuzzy, and centered--in the same class. I invite you to watch a video of that lecture.

My thesis is that a centered approach, as seen in Jesus and Paul, is a corrective to both bounded churches and to the “whateverism” and tolerance as supreme virtue of a fuzzy approach. In the next blog I will share some ideas on how to help people move from a fuzzy approach to a centered approach. That was the reason I started talking about fuzzy groups in class--to work at a corrective. But something interesting happened. Including an explanation of fuzzy groups aided students understanding of the centered approach.

After including fuzzy ethics in class this year, I have observed three key improvements:

Centered– Now more clearly a different paradigm

I have always stated that the centered approach, the way of Jesus, is a radically different paradigm than a bounded approach. Students appeared to grasp that more easily this year. By presenting a fuzzy approach as re-working of a bounded group, giving it a very fuzzy boundary line, I can describe a continuum from radically bounded to radically fuzzy. All on that continuum are of the same paradigm. The centered approach is fundamentally different. It is not on the continuum, it is a different paradigm.

Centered—Now more clearly not “Christianity-lite”

Over the years the biggest challenge I have had in explaining a centered approach has been helping people understand it is not relativistic. In contrast to the bounded approach they perceive it as too loose. I think I have gotten much better at showing it is not “Christianity-lite”  (listen to all the ways I try to do that in the current version of the class), but still some students did not seem to get it—until this year! Adding the fuzzy group to the mix enabled students to see and have a name for a relativistic version, and see the centered approach as something different. Students this year more easily saw that the centered approach includes a call to changed living flowing from a relationship with Jesus because they contrasted the centered approach not only with bounded, but also with fuzzy.

Centered--Now more clearly making ethical demands beyond tolerance.

This greater clarity lessened the pushback by those who had argued against the centered approach from one direction, but the same clarity brought pushback from the other direction. Some students who are more attracted to a fuzzy approach now critiqued the centered approach for having too strong of an ethical call. In the past they probably would have interpreted the centered approach in a fuzzier way because I presented it as the alternative to bounded, and they knew bounded was problematic. For them as well it was clear that the centered approach is different than the fuzzy approach. It does ask more of people than to just practice tolerance as supreme virtue.

Our culture continues to frame ethical dilemmas somewhere on this continuum between out-grouping boundedness and all inclusive fuzziness, leaning more and more toward the relative virtues of tolerance and personal authenticity. When you are wrestling with an ethical problem, I encourage you to recenter on Jesus--not to exclude but to discover a new way of being. 

How does the centered approach reframe something for you more clearly around Jesus?

What is an example of how you have found talking about or utilizing a centered approach helpful?

What other potential benefits do you see from adding a description of a fuzzy group to the discussion about bounded and centered?

Living into Focus

Book Review:

Living into Focus: Choosing What Matters in an Age of Distractions
- Arthur Boers

The title captures well what the book is about. It is well written, a good mix of personal reflection by the author, examples from his life and the lives of others, and insights from thinkers like Ellul and Borgman. The author brings big ideas of cultural criticism down to practical, day to day issues and habits of my life. I use quotes from the book in a few different D & E classes and have added chapter seven as a reading for the course.

A few memorable quotes:

“We have allowed our technology to outrun our theology” - MLK Jr. (69)  

“The issue is not technology itself but the reality that we often do not reflect on how we are affected and formed by our use of it.”

“Machines grow quieter, but we use more of them and so add to the noise. Devices are increasingly energy efficient, but we employ so many that we end up using more power than ever. While computers and online connections get faster, the time we spend on them keeps going up. The better we are at responding to e-mail, the more we are inundated by it.” (70)

“Too often our interactions with technology follow a predictable trajectory: because it is available we use it, then we think it is normal, and finally we expect or even demand that others employ it as well.” (71)

“People must be taught not to want leisure but to desire possessions.” - Henry Ford (144)

“When unclear about fundamental priorities, urgency becomes the default position.” (192)

I encourage you to read the book and, as I did, look for one or two new things to integrate into your life. Small changes can have big impacts on the whole.

Presence in an Age of Absence

During the first five or so years I taught Discipleship and Ethics, some students would push back and argue with me during the technique/technology class—they wanted to defend the use of technology. Following Ellul, I made the point that I was not attacking specific technologies. Rather, my concern was society’s general shift to adopt any tool or technique that was perceived to be more efficient without reflecting critically on its potential alienating impact.

The push-back no longer happens. 

No student has argued against my general thesis in that class session for years. At one level it is counter-intuitive. Students today use much more technology than in 2000 when cell phones were not ubiquitous, and there were no smart phones, tablets, etc. One would think that students would feel much more defensive today. But they are not. My sense is that no one pushes back now because, in their being, they feel the alienation that Ellul describes. They feel the truth. They have no problem filling the white board with both positive and negative effects of efficient technologies in their lives. This shift from push-back to no-resistance is like a carbon monoxide detector going off. Something has changed. The danger level has increased. What are we doing to let in fresh air and lessen the toxins?

Two years ago I added a new assignment after the class on technique. I ask students to do the following and write a reflection letter on the experience: 

Choose a day in the week ahead for a fast from electronic communication (cell phone/mobile devices, e-mail, Twitter, Facebook and any other internet based forms of communication). You may choose the length of the fast, all day would be ideal, but less than that is acceptable.

It has proven to be a powerful assignment. Here are a few examples of common reflections:

“I began to see that all my efficiency is at the expense of something I hold dear...relationships.”  

“I felt a sense of freedom that I have not felt in a while; actually, I felt human. The world does not hang on my shoulders; it will not fall apart if I do not answer the phone. My relationship with my wife felt a lot more profound even though we didn’t talk much but simply enjoyed each other’s presence. My time felt abundant and the day went by less faster.”

“It was a struggle to wrestle with how I can reduce the control technique has over me when I live in a society that is conditioning me to rely on technique.” 

“To my great surprise, this day felt like a day off. The irony was that I did a lot of work, but it felt like a day off. I enjoyed the fact that I did not have to continually check my phone, wondering if I had missed a text from someone that I might need to get back to. I did not need to check my Facebook or e-mail. I did not have to see the blue light of a computer or kindle or tv screen. I did not have to be controlled by anyone else’s convenience nor did I feel compelled to initiate a question or conversation with someone I felt obligated to. I did not feel bad or guilty for a conversation not happening.”

“I realized how often I check my phone for calls and emails. [I] would reach for the phone only to remember it wasn't in my pocket.”

“In my most consumed moments of social media and technology there are instances where I become aware that I am looking for something. I ask myself in that moment: what am I looking for? What do I need right in this moment that I think social media can fill? Is it friendship? A connection? Personal meaning? Motivation? Am I avoiding something? Am I seeking attention? Recognition?”

“The first thing I felt: Addicted.”

“I discovered I thought I could be in two places at once.  I believed I could be on the floor playing with one of my daughters and also responding to a question via my phone.  This is not true, the moment I pick up my phone I am no longer in the same space my daughter is in.”

“I now realize just how much of a priority I give to these forms of communication without even realizing what control it has on me. I had to literally lock my phone away because I was finding that I would just naturally look at it without thinking. Why has this become such an addiction?”

Some students also shared action steps they planned to take such as turning off their phones at a set hour each evening, having a no-phones-at-the-table rule during family meals, not carrying their phone at home—treating it like a land line, or committing to regular fasts.

I encourage you to try a fast, or do it again. 

Share what you learn and ideas on how to lessen communication technologies’ alienating power in our lives in the comment section below.

In recent years we have listened to part of a college chapel talk by Shane Hipps. He tells a moving story about the significance of presence and ends with the following statement that I encourage you to reflect on today:  

“The digital age has taught us that our presence doesn’t matter. . . God became flesh and lived among us. We all have bodies too.  . . Something about presence matters. . . May we become God’s presence in a world of absence, in a world desperate for that kind of tangible presence.”