march snow
the march snow
muffles the hope of spring
in every bough,
shaving thinner a tiny string
of verdant hope
which ties us to a newer thing.
Images, Screens, and Wishes
Pinterst, tumblr, Instagram: I'm looking at you! Stop tricking the young women I know into thinking that "thinspiration" quotes laid over a skinny girl in Nike shorts will help them get fit. Stop making them believe that enough reposts of dreamy cabin scenes will magically bring them the same rewards as a life of intentional contemplation and real-life adventure. And please stop whatever it is that you're doing to convince them that those attractive young couples holding hands in the photo have anything to do with solid, dependable wisdom about romance. <<
Real life is not a GIF.
Real life is not on tumblr.
Real life does not come in pixels.
Stop hiding behind screens and wishes.
Go and live!
What's so sinister about happy words over fresh-faced girls, though?
The reasons I object to this type of media are that it encourages passivity and that it nurtures a dissatisfaction with real and daily living.
But you see, we don't have much time to think about the messages that these combinations of images and words are sending us because they are embedded in a system of delivery that discourages contemplation and action. Sites like Instagram, Pinterest, and tumblr are set up to give us a constantly updated and never-ending stream of image-heavy content so that our eyes will be on the screen for as long as possible. This has at least a couple of effects:
1) Our eyes, and so our minds, spend little time on any individual image. In the age of too much information, we're becoming more and more efficient at scanning, which helps us sort through all the input faster. How often have you realized your eyes just sort of skim the whole Pinterest page until a particularly interesting image catches your eye? It would be an overwhelming task to read every caption and look carefully at each picture presented, right? Right. So we don't. And how often do you realize you thumbed through a whole bunch of truly beautiful Instagram photos in your feed because, well, time and impatience? If you're like me, often.
2) Mostly all this "inspiration" leads us into dissatisfaction, not action. I know for a fact that tumblr is replete with images of mugs of steaming beverages on rustic wooden tables beside a window overlooking a bright, snowy scene. On the tumblr stream, an image like this meets our eye, strikes us with a certain feeling, offers us the option to "like" or "reblog" it, and then is cast upward in our search for another good feeling. Instead of taking actions, we briefly receive the image, are struck with a tiny surge of emotion, decide to share or not share, and move on. I suppose I could make myself a cup of hot chocolate or peppermint tea or whatever, but it just wouldn't be as wonderful because my table is definitely not made of reclaimed barn wood and when I look out my window I don't see a snowscape in rural Montana, I see an apartment building next door. We pursue the feelings, the lusts and yearnings, in place of pursuing the experiences themselves.
Does that runner look exhilarated? Does the quote plastered over it make you feel a teensy bit powerful too as you imagine yourself in the image? Yes, but how often does it make you stop scrolling and walk outside so, you know, you can experience the exhilarating effects of exertion in the great outdoors?
So my complaint isn't with pretty white teenagers or steaming mugs of coffee or couples holding hands on top of wrinkled bedsheets. My complaint is with our collective capitulation to the tyranny of the image. We are voracious for the image, we worship the image, we devour the image, we experience the tiniest samples of emotion through the image and we accept these vicarious experiences in place of the real thing.
Stop hiding behind screens and wishes.
Go and live!
Call a friend and arrange a pajama party; pack your favorite mug and tea.
Dust off your old bike and feel the breeze on your face.
Walk over to that scary pantry and spend 15 minutes cleaning it up.
Crack open your old French textbook and practice your conjugations.
---Because if you want to make cozy and happy memories, or if you want to truly experience joy, or if you want to conquer your fears and find peace, or if you want to stretch yourself and discover new adventures, you must go beyond reblogging. You must do.
Stop hiding behind screens and wishes.
Go and live!
All who make idols are nothing,
and the things they treasure are worthless.
Who shapes a god and casts an idol,
which can profit him nothing?
He fashions a god and worships it;
he makes an idol and bows down to it.
He feeds on ashes, a deluded heart misleads him;
he cannot save himself, or say,
'Is not this thing in my right hand a lie?'
[isaiah 44]
Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. [colossians 3:9-10]
The Exact Truth Should Be the Law of Speech
Sensationalism. Scandal-mongering. Name calling. "News." ––It seems that yellow journalism is back with a vengeance.
Maybe we can blame the 24-hour news cycle that fills the airwaves with, uh, something . . . even when it has nothing to say.
Maybe we can blame the rise of video for making us all more interested in a 45-second clip of anything even when it has nothing to do with something.
Maybe we can blame an increasingly polarized political situation in which the other guy is wrong because, well, he's WRONG, okay? He just is. Never has a politician been so anti-American and backwards as this guy! Only fools and monsters would vote for him!––thus distorting our sense of proportion and demonstrating our inability to follow well-reasoned arguments to reasonable conclusions.
This is bad for our political climate, bad for our policy-making, bad for our neighborliness, bad for our critical thinking, bad bad bad.
It's bad in the world, but it's far worse when it's in the church. Sermons and blogs and "news" stories in which we underhandedly denigrate believers who believe differently than we do, in which we defame by exaggeration or misrepresentation, in which we thinly veil our slander under the guise of journalism or righteous reformation:
this is the body of Christ eating itself, one bloody bite at a time.
The Father, Son, and Spirit weep at the sight of these things.
Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, "You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord." But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black.
Let your word be "Yes, Yes," or "No, No"; anything more than this comes from the evil one. [matthew 5:33-37, nrsv]
Jesus told us to "swear not at all." For those of us not really in the habit of making oaths and swearing by things, what's the message for us? >> The exact truth should be the law of speech.
In a world of multiplying divisions and deepening divides, where words are wielded to wound and the "other" is an enemy, this message of Jesus is an eminently relevant one: SPEAK ONLY THE TRUTH. When you speak of your brother, speak only the truth. When you represent the beliefs of your sister, speak only the truth. When you disagree with that preacher publicly, speak only the truth. When you need to criticize an author, speak only the truth. The exact truth should be the law of speech.
"Jesus proceeded to lay down a principle that would make oath taking needless. He teaches that the exact truth should be the law of speech. 'Let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: and whatsoever is more than these is of the evil one.' . . . .
"If these words of Christ were heeded, they would check the utterance of evil surmising and unkind criticism; for in commenting upon the actions and motives of another, who can be certain of speaking the exact truth? How often pride, passion, personal resentment, color the impression given! A glance, a word, even an intonation of the voice, may be vital with falsehood. Even facts may be so stated as to convey a false impression. And 'whatsoever is more than' truth, 'is of the evil one.'
"Everything that Christians do should be as transparent as the sunlight. Truth is of God; deception, in every one of its myriad forms, is of Satan; and whoever in any way departs from the straight line of truth is betraying himself into the power of the wicked one. Yet it is not a light or an easy thing to speak the exact truth. We cannot speak the truth unless we know the truth; and how often preconceived opinions, mental bias, imperfect knowledge, errors of judgment, prevent a right understanding of matters with which we have to do! We cannot speak the truth unless our minds are continually guided by Him who is truth.
"Through the apostle Paul, Christ bids us, 'Let your speech be alway with grace.' 'Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.' (Colossians 4:6, Ephesians 4:29)"
(Ellen White, Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing, 67-68.)
Christian, as you speak, tweet, post, or share, remember:
the exact truth + alway with grace.
Wishing Him Well But Withholding My Applause
About a week ago, former pastor Ryan J Bell wrote a piece giving a brief history of his religious experience and announcing his plans to "try on" atheism for the year of 2014. (You can read that post on his just-for-the-project blog HERE and see a catalogue of his contributions to The Huffington Post, where the article was published, HERE.) He says, "I will not pray, read the Bible for inspiration, refer to God as the cause of things or hope that God might intervene and change my own or someone else's circumstances." Unsurprisingly, the reactions have been varied. Some are supporting his experiment in living without God as an undertaking of intellectual virtue, moving beyond the answers of faith to seriously consider the atheistic alternative. Others are doubtful that one can play atheist and not let one's religious convictions, however troubled, get in the way. Many are endorsing Bell's efforts as a laudable act of refreshing honesty, finally admitting the doubts that many religious people keep hidden.
Some Christians are of the mind that his experiment in atheism is "courageous," "brave." They see this "journey into atheism" as a bold authenticity demonstrated in the face of the inevitable backlash (which has manifested itself, in part, in losing his adjunct teaching positions at Azusa Pacific University and Fuller Seminary; read Bell's own summary HERE). In this telling, Ryan Bell is the unpopular man standing for his convictions as an act of heroism, spiritual authenticity, and intellectual honesty. The cheers go up: "Courageous! Way to stand out on your own, Ryan! Way to do the unpopular thing!"
It's easy to start nodding along to this cheerleading. After all, many of us still consider Ryan Bell a part of our religious community. Present circumstances and choices notwithstanding, he lived as a Seventh-day Adventist believer and pastor for decades and many of us were blessed by his words and example. At least on the emotional level, he's still one of "us." And for people both within and without the Adventist community, there's a righteous urge to stand with the guy catching trouble for being "true to himself" and to protect him from bad things that might look like persecution (usually labeled as "hate" by the fifth post in a comments section). Further, many of us religious people DO have unanswered questions about a lot of things and if we've ever felt that the church was an unsafe place to share our sincere questions, there's something about Ryan's experiment that sounds so . . . exhilarating.
But, having no ill will toward Ryan Bell or any of his supporters, I submit that
people who believe the gospel of Jesus Christ should not be applauding this experiment in atheism and should instead see it for what it is: an abandonment of Jesus and His gospel.
So let's talk a little bit about courage.
Having questions about the reality of God's existence is not inherently courageous nor inherently cowardly. Sometimes atheists wonder if maybe there is a god out there after all. Sometimes theists wonder if "God" is just a figment of the collective human imagination. Also, sometimes I wonder if there are mice in my apartment or if I'm just imagining those sounds. Wondering isn't necessarily brave or courageous; it is a reflex, sometimes nurtured into a habit, of the mind.
Yet what one does with those questions, those wonderings, those doubts may be cowardly or courageous. And the evaluation one makes on this point––commendably courageous or unforgivably cowardly?––is a moral one, it rests on a certain construal of reality and so of morality. Those with a Christian construal of reality have no grounds to consider this experiment an act of moral virtue.
Perhaps observers from all sides could agree that an experiment like Ryan Bell's is "dangerous," in that it is endangering the convictions and lifestyle that he has maintained up till now. Depending on your philosophical leanings, this danger could be the worst thing in the world or the best––is he moving closer to or farther away from truth? Is he moving closer toward or farther away from actual reality? Your answer depends on what you think is true and what you think is right.
A citizen who gives intelligence to an enemy power is doing something really quite dangerous: he is in danger of being discovered and convicted and executed for treason. High-risk! Most of his fellow citizens will condemn his dangerous behavior as treacherous still, helping the "wrong" people; most with interests in the foreign power will commend his dangerous behavior as courageous, displaying a self-sacrificial willingness to aid the "right" cause.
Shall we call Ryan Bell's experiment courageous? I speak here to my fellow Christian believers, the saints who are in Christ Jesus. Shall we commend Ryan Bell for bravery, applaud his gumption, shield him from any Christian critique? Though some have, none of us should.
Why not?
It is not because I wish to uncritically silence every doubt knocking about in the heads of thoughtful people.
It is not because I think doubting God's existence is a sin.
It is not because I'd like to see atheists (or doubters) dehumanized or treated without respect.
It is because my commitment to the person of Jesus Christ will not allow me to applaud the move of someone who is, in his own words, living "as if" God doesn't exist. It doesn't allow me to think that "God is big enough to handle my questions" means "It's acceptable to turn my back to Him and look to profit from writing about it."
I know a little something about Christian faith and Christian doubt. Several years after my spiritual conversion I spent quite a while in the land of This Might All Be A Weird And Time-Consuming Sham. And what my sojourn there taught me was that a Christian can have legitimate doubts and explore their real possibility from a place of faith. To atheists, this may sound like hopeless intellectual hypocrisy, but everybody has questions and everybody has got to explore those questions from some place. In consideration of all He has done on my behalf, I'd like to literally give Jesus the benefit of the doubt.
––Which is what I wish Ryan Bell would do. He has his reasons, perhaps not all shared publicly. He has a personal history unique to him and a relationship with God that I can't pretend to give a reliable judgment about. I'm not looking to offer any judgment on issues of his salvation or conscience or motivations.
I wish rather to speak to the well-meaning Christian faithful in my Facebook feed, my Twitter timeline, and my RSS feed: side with faith, side with Jesus. If you're a person who has embraced the "Jesus. All." ethic, recognize that what Ryan's doing isn't that. It's anti-Jesus, taking off his personal faith to live in skepticism. Wish Ryan well, greet him warmly if you meet him, pray for him, but don't offer applause for his 365-day renunciation of the gospel and of God.
Maybe at the end of 2014 he'll find theism is an intellectually and experientially viable option, maybe he'll even return to Christian faith and to the Church. That's what I'm rooting for, but in the meantime, I'll hold my applause.