Category: The World is Better Than You think

Doing our best to understand the world as it is and not as the news media and our fears tell us

Posted on

Where Are the Voices for Optimism?

Things are getting better all the time! That was the near universal view of the Western world in the 19th century. People were optimistic, and they believed in progress.

Today, there is near universal pessimism in the Western world. Hardly anyone seems excited about the future, and few are filled with wonder as they contemplate what the world will be like 100 years from now.

Compare the science fiction novels of the 19th century to those of today. Many of the novels of the 19th century brim with enthusiasm about future discoveries. Today, the dystopian novel is the most popular. This illustrates the pervasive optimism of the 19th century and the pessimism of today.

So, what happened? Well, two world wars and a decades-long threat of nuclear annihilation have a way of knocking the optimism out of you. World War I sent a shockwave through the Western World from which we certainly have not recovered.

But when we look at the big picture and all that could have gone wrong in the 20th century, you notice two things. We lived to talk about it, and a lot of things are actually going relatively well. True, there are problems in the world, but there are lots of opportunities. Millions have come out of poverty. World travel and communication is better than ever before. Trade is as robust as ever. Even on the religion front, religions are growing and thriving all over the world.

In regards to the Christian faith, the majority of followers of Jesus now live outside of the West because Christianity has grown so much in the southern hemisphere. In spite of the growth of Christianity, there is general skepticism among Christians about the state of the church in the West. In part, this is due to the decline of Christianity in Western Europe. In America, church attendance has been the same for decades, though the influence of Christianity has waned in the non-church going society (see Ed Stetzer on this here).

Evangelical Christians might defend pessimism by pointing to the decline in family and sexual ethics. This decline is true to some degree (I am speaking from an evangelical perspective). However, even here the news is mixed. Today, parents spend more time with their kids. Also, while less people than in past decades say sex before marriage is wrong, more people than in the past say adultery is wrong! (See the statistics on this in the book Upside by sociologist Bradley R.E. Wright). I remember talking to some folks about this, and they would not believe it. They were also fans of the television show Frasier. I pointed out that the characters on the show seemed to have no problem with sex before marriage. However, the characters clearly believed adultery was morally wrong. For example, in episode 17, Frasier tried to save Niles from having an affair with Daphne and seemed horrified that he would do so. I believe this illustrates the general ethos in America.

Another way someone might defending pessimism is to ask, couldn’t something go radically wrong and devastate our society? Yes. There’s no question that this is true, but it also might not. When I was in junior high, I read Larry Burkett’s The Coming Economic Earthquake (yes, I was and am a nerd!). I bought into it. I thought we were facing an imminent economic collapse. Then . . . it didn’t happen. I heard predictions like this again and again as the years went by. They all turned out to be false. The trouble with these sorts of predictions is that they have some, albeit a very small, plausibility, and the effects are so disastrous that they are hard to ignore. The American economy has been on the upswing for a long time. If I had started with the belief that this would continue, I probably would have been better off.

Another argument in favor of pessimism is the many daunting challenges we face today or could face in the near future. But look back at the 20th century. There were incredible challenges, and many things went really wrong. However, people also rose up to meet them. Men and women took leadership to challenge global tyranny and to build the good things that we are experiencing today. We can do the same thing, and our children can too, by the grace of God.

Speaking of our children, they are often the focus of our pessimism and anxiety about the future. We sometimes have almost a paranoia about our children, and, let’s be frank, things can and sometimes do go very wrong. However, most children experiment with the same dumb things we did, learn from it, and move on into adulthood. When it comes to our children, where is there a voice that says, our children will do greater things than we did and past generations did? Who has a vision for our children accomplishing greater things? It’s easy to look at their weaknesses and extrapolate them into the future, but we had enough weaknesses to warrant pessimism. But where are the voices for optimism?

From a Christian standpoint, we not only believe that our children are made in the image of God with tremendous potential for good and for evil. We also believe that God will be present in the future. He has been at work, is at work, and will be at work. This gives Christianity a basic future orientation and a note of cautious optimism. I like how Isaiah expresses it: “Forget the former things; do not dwell on the past. See, I am doing a new thing! Now it springs up; do you not perceive it? I am making a way in the wilderness and streams in the wasteland” (43:18 19).

Reinhold Niebuhr summarized the Christian perspective in this little phrase: “If hopes are dupes, fears may be liars” (The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness, 176).

I hear a lot of spokespeople for our fears, but where are spokespeople for our hopes? Where are the voices for optimism?

Posted on

Why I Am Unplugging from News Media and Ignoring President Trump and His Critics in 2019

I was happy and feeling good. It was Thanksgiving. Like millions of others, I was anticipating a day of turkey, football, family, and fun.

We had traveled from Tennessee to North Carolina to my parents home where my Mother had lovingly prepared a meal for her children and grandchildren. Because we have seven children, my parents can only accommodate 5 of the 9 of us. So, my wife and two of my children stayed at the Greensboro Airport Quality Inn.

Thanksgiving morning, I went down to consume the free breakfast offered by the hotel. Sure enough, there was a cable news network loudly blaring across the room. “President Donald Trump responded to criticisms by John Roberts . . . blah, blah blah.”

I said to my wife: “Seriously! Can’t we just have one day where we don’t talk about our political disagreements and focus on good things. It is Thanksgiving after all!”

As I reflected on that experience, a bunch of things came together for me. I thought, doesn’t the 24 hour new cycle feed into most of what’s worst in human nature? Why do we need it? Does it help us?

I was reminded of the many times I had said something like the following to people: “Isn’t it great that poverty is being reduced dramatically worldwide, that hunger is on the verge of being eliminated, and caloric intake is up worldwide?”

The inevitable response is: “it is???”

How is it that in a world drenched in “news,” we don’t know this rather encouraging morsel? “Reduction in worldwide hunger,” it appears, is just not the sort of thing that makes headlines. Apparently, good long-term trends don’t lend themselves to “breaking news.”

At that point, I made a decision. I was going to unplug from news media. That did not mean that I was going to ignore current events altogether. I decided I would read only my local paper and one news magazine that is relatively close to the middle of the spectrum.

I did not wait until 2019 to do this. I started right away. It demanded changes on my part.

My most common way of following the news was my phone. A lot of my consumption of news grew out of boredom. This made me reflect on how I use my phone. I often use it as a cure for boredom not because I’ve thought it through and think it’s useful. So, I made another resolution: stop using my phone as an attempted cure for boredom.

I then unsubscribed from a variety of news alerts and emails. I removed apps from my phone. I was unplugging.

Then, a thought occurred to me. What drives most of the 24 hours news cycle in this country? President Trump and his detractors. So, I thought a little bit more. What if I just ignored what President Trump said about this or that and also ignored his detractors. Would I really lose anything? . . . Nah.

So, I began my journey. I actually didn’t think that much about it. I just cut out electronic news from my life. After that, I didn’t really think about it much or miss it.

Then, one day, I was walking around town, and I realized something. Throughout 2018, I had spent a ton of time thinking about the current “crisis” in our country, the deep partisan divide. I wrote and preached addressing this “crisis” as you can read here and here.

After a few weeks of being unplugged from news media and ignoring President Trump and his detractors, I realized something: “There’s no crisis!” I just did not experience the sort of deep division manifested in the news media in the life I live on a day to day, week to week, or month to month basis. I was now free to spend my time thinking about other things, including solving the real problems that I, my family, my church, and my community face.

I am not saying that anyone should follow my example in doing this. I certainly don’t mean to condemn or judge anyone who watches news or reads news web site. I think of this more as an interest experiment in living.

It’s already changed my perspective on life quite a bit. I wonder, what will a year unplugged from news media and ignoring President Trump and his detractors will be like?

Posted on

The Christian and Politics

The intensity of political division in our nation has given me a desire to write on politics from a Christian perspective. I still plan to do so, but I found Pastor Tim Keller’s op-ed in the New York Times a great start. His article is entitled “How Do Christians Fit Into the Two-Party System? They Don’t.” I would recommend it to your reading.

Mark Tooley has provided a good summary of the key points of Keller’s article on his blog. He summarizes:

  • “Those who avoid all political discussions and engagement are essentially casting a vote for the social status quo.”
  • “While believers can register under a party affiliation and be active in politics, they should not identify the Christian church or faith with a political party as the only Christian one.”
  • “Most political positions are not matters of biblical command but of practical wisdom.”
  • “The biblical commands to lift up the poor and to defend the rights of the oppressed are moral imperatives for believers.” But, the “Bible does not give exact answers to these questions for every time, place and culture.”
  • “Jesus forbids us to withhold help from our neighbors, and this will inevitably require that we participate in political processes.”
  • Finally, Keller warns that “increasingly, political parties insist that you cannot work on one issue with them if you don’t embrace all of their approved positions,” which Christians must reject.

The key thing for us as Christians is to remain engaged without letting our faith or churches become pawns in the political battle between our two parties. Keller’s article is a good summary of why we should move toward that goal.

Posted on

How to Be Completely Humble in a Radically Polarized World

“Be completely humble, gentle, and patient” (Eph. 4:2). That’s the heart of a life that’s worthy of our calling as Christians (Eph. 4:1). But is that even possible in a world like ours?

To begin with, let’s consider: what do we mean by humility, gentleness, and patience?

Humility is not necessarily a low view of ourselves. It is primarily a high view of others. We tend to overplay our own strengths and ideas and do the reverse for others. Humility turns this around: it considers others better than ourselves (Phil. 2:3).

When I think of gentleness, I think of the word “safety.” Being gentle makes it safe for others to speak to us and be themselves. It makes us easy to be reconciled to and ready to connect with others. When we are gentle, people do not fear that we will penalize them for what they say by our emotional reactions.

Patience recognizes that people are different. People think in different ways, grow at different rates, and come to conclusions at different times. Patience is OK with this and allows people to take that time to work through things in their own way.

The trouble is this. It’s all nice and good to say “be completely humble, gentle, and patient,” but what do we do in times of polarization and high anxiety?

Let me give an illustration. What is more polarizing in our time than the presidency of Donald Trump? People have strong emotions and opinions on both sides of the issue. What does it look like to be completely humble, gentle, and patient about our views of President Trump? It certainly does not mean that we should have no opinion about him, so what does it mean?

First, to be humble means that we value other people’s views, opinions, and ideas. So, we can be open to hearing why people oppose or support Donald Trump.

Second, to be gentle means that we make it safe for others to share their opinions. We don’t turn the discussion into an interrogation or cut people off. We allow them to share their ideas in the way they want to share them. We don’t look for one little mistake and then try to smash them. We make it safe for people to share their real feelings and thoughts.

Third, to be patient means that we let people process it. We may want to convince them to hold a different opinion, but we give people space to work through it. We recognize that people don’t have all the facts and ideas they’ve had about the issue at their disposal at just the moment we want to talk about it. We are swift to hear, slow to speak, and slow to wrath.

I think if everyone did this, then we could have a society that would be much more capable of thinking through issues. We would also be better at building community rather than tearing it down.

However, there are some times where things are what we might call “radically polarized.” This occurs when there is a hot or cold war over some issue or position.

Now, it’s important to note that we often feel like we are in such a do or die situation when we actually are not. In fact, most people feel like they have less options than they have. In spite of that, there are times, sadly, when all that is left is war.

An example of this on a smaller scale is some child custody battles. In some of these battles, everything is weaponized. You can’t be vulnerable because everything will be used against you to try and get custody of the children.

Some might suggest that this means the Christian just gives up and lets it. Sometimes this is necessary, but there are some things worth fighting for in spite of the high cost. There are some things we have no right to surrender.

So, how can a person be completely humble, gentle, and patient in such situations?

Humility in these situations involves what Reinhold Niebuhr calls “being in the battle and above it.” There is a need to fight, but we always need to be stepping outside of the situation to recognize our own sins in the matter, our own need for grace, and the general tragedy of such radically polarized situations.

Gentleness means that we do what is necessary and go no further. It is a soldier who carries out his duty but does all he can to avoid any additional harm and keeps himself from the passionate desires to destroy, humiliate, abuse, and take revenge. This is not easy, but it is our calling. Gentleness also means that we are ready to reconcile when the opportunity arises to de-escalate the conflict.

Patience here involves the willingness to recognize that reconciliation is a process. You don’t generally enter into a radically polarized situation overnight. You won’t get out of one overnight either. We have to be willing to work through the many small steps toward normalization of relationships.

Being completely humble, gentle, and patient doesn’t mean we’ll make everybody happy (which is impossible and not our responsibility). It means a disposition to think well of others, make things safe for them, and be willing to work through the process relationships require.

In this world, we have to take stands and hold to things where people will disagree with us, sometimes stridently so. Sometimes injustices require war. It’s not easy to be completely humble, gentle, and patient in such situations, but we can and should make moves toward these even in the most radically polarized situation that will clear the way for future reconciliation. In the midst of it all, we recognize that we will fall short and still have to pray, “forgive us our debts . . .”

Posted on

The English are Celtic?

When you think of Celtic heritage, you may think of the Irish, the Scots-Irish, the Welsh, or the Scots.

You probably don’t think of the English because they are called Anglo-Saxons after the Germanic tribes that invaded at the end of the Roman Empire. They also don’t claim a Celtic heritage the like the Irish, Welsh, and Scots do.

That’s wrong, says Bryan Sykes, on the basis of his research into the DNA of the people living in the Isles today.

Sykes describes his research in his book Saxons, Vikings, and Celts: The Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland. If you like detailed stories of scientific discovery, then you will love this book. If not, here’s a brief summary of what he found.

There are two main questions that arise in considering the genetic history of the British Isles. First, are all of the people who were there prior to the Roman invasion of common descent?

To answer the first: there is a basic, common “Celtic” substratum that exists throughout the Isles.

In answer to the second: not very much.

The Roman invasion left almost no mark on the DNA of the British Isles.

It is difficult, according to Sykes, to distinguish the DNA of the Normans, Vikings, and Anglo-Saxons. They were all basically from the same Germanic people group. The Normans were simply Vikings that extorted the King of France into giving them Normandy and then ended up conquering England.

These groups left a minor impact on the genetic makeup of the isles. Sykes estimates that their DNA constitutes about 10% of the DNA in the southwestern part of England. Above the Danelaw line, the percentage rises to around 15% and to a high of 20% in East Anglia.

Americans who came from England are often called WASPs: White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestants. Based on Sykes’ research, they may need to be called WCPs: White, Celtic, Protestants. The English are much closer to the Irish and Scots than any of them would have believed.

For, according to Sykes, the English are basically Celtic.

Proudly powered by WordPress