White Privilege, White Supremacy, and White Evangelicals

Last week my bike got stolen off the front porch. I wasn't sure if it was worth calling the police since bikes get stolen all the time. It did however have a bright red kids passenger trailer attached to the back, so I thought the chance of them finding it was higher. When the officers arrived they were professional and patient. My children, who witnessed the theft, didn't have many details to give them, but we chatted casually about the bike and any distinguishing features it might have.

Surprisingly enough (to me and the officer) he was actually able to find the bike and was waiting on me at my house when I returned from the grocery store just a few hours later. Given the frustrating beginning, this turned out to be a very positive experience for my family. We got our bike back with minimal pain. We learned an important lesson about using bike locks. My neighborhood (we have a text chain) was encouraging throughout. My children got to interact and see what community policing looks like.

This is what the Black Lives Matter movement wants for all Americans. Regular, normalized, police interactions. Civil rights has always been a push to give the disenfranchised what the privileged already have. In fact, our next door neighbor, who just so happens to be black, jokingly said “if I ever have anything stolen I’ll be sure and have you call the police for me!”

As is painfully aware, this has been difficult for white America to understand. If we only use our own experiences to understand the world, we will only understand our world. So I wanted to follow up that story with some content that has helped me gain a greater understanding of reality.



I’ll also note that these links I gathered to speak directly to one specific group of white Americans: white evangelicals. I am a Christian. I attend a theologically orthodox church. And I believe these people, my people, have the most potential to come into a right understanding on this issue.

This first link is a podcast that describes the modern political history of this group known as “evangelicals”. It starts all the way back in the founding days of the United States, but if you want to skip to when the movement truly began, you can start at minute 37:45.

What this podcast above shows is that race and segregation, not abortion, was the initial unifying political force for white evangelicals in the 1970’s. Even though racial integration was explicitly a key issue for the white evangelicals politically, I don’t think that’s as obvious today. It confirms what I wrote in this old post before the 2016 election about how the abortion issue, especially in presidential politics, is largely a red herring. And here’s more recent link about the abortion conversation among Christians from an old blogging friend.

There can be an assumption, based on white experience, that the issue of race is not important today. However, there are some stark differences living in this country and a black citizen. Unless you believe there is an inherent difference between races, then the only explanation for such a gap is hundreds of years of a 2 steps forward, 1 step back. Here is a video from an evangelical Christian laying out many examples of such inequalities.

Racial inequality is real. The compounded effects of centuries of legal and societal policies are real. The threat of white supremacy continues to be real. The lack of modern institutional improvements with those realities in mind is also very real. I’ll close with a very specific theological call to the white evangelical community. Here is a video from the most prominent member of my denomination, Tim Keller. It directly addresses why Christians, more than any other group, should be comfortable with the reality that the actions of previous generations can bring both blessing and curses that we need to mourn.

Politics As Religion

I'm catching up on my "Conversations with (Economist) Tyler Cowen" podcasts (earlier on Tyler). Here's a great quote from an interview with social psychologist Jonathan Haidt:

National politics is different from local. National politics, I believe, is much more like religion than local politics is. If you take it all the way down to the very local level — who the dogcatcher is, who the treasurer is of the town — that’s all very practical stuff. People are very worried about their property values and things like that. It’s not very ideological. National politics is much more like a religion. The president is the high priest of the American civil religion

And to be clear, I think this is mostly a negative.

Hearing from God, Speaking for God

The Introduction

Eight years ago this month I asked the readers of this blog what types of criteria they had for choosing a church. Rereading that short post and the comments put me back in the mindset of that time when we had just moved to the Research Triangle Park of NC. Here’s me in the comments of that post: “We are pretty much only looking at PCA churches. Not because we think those are the only good churches, but because we both really agree with their doctrinal foundations.” We ended up doing just that. We chose what turned out to be a great church with great doctrine and stayed there for about 3 years. However, when we decided to move back to our hometown and start the church search over again, I had similar criteria, but a much different order of importance. Back in Greenville we ended up going to a great church with great community. For the last four years we’ve been involved in what is essentially of church of a dozen people (connected to a larger church gathering).

As you can imagine, choosing a church based on organizational structure and size does not always create a community of like minded individuals. That’s led to some difficult, but beneficial conversations. We’ve baptized our two infants in a church that believes that sacrament is for those with a profession of faith. We’ve worked through church leadership and discipleship differences. Wrestling through those types of disagreements with a group of kindhearted friends has been wonderful. However, one issue that’s long been difficult to come to a place of mutual acceptance is the issue of God’s literal voice in our life. It’s deeply personal and obviously supernatural which makes the conversation complicated. I warn you, the rest of this post is painfully insider baseball. I’ll also assume that scripture is the authoritative source on the issue. Whether you believe that’s true or not, it’s certainly reasonable to say that for those who do submit to scripture as “God breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16), that it should also be useful for useful for “teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”. So if you’re not actively involved in a church, this will likely feel like long meaningless minutiae (and I’m not 100% that you’d be wrong).


The Point

Before the Fall of Mankind, God had regular interactions with Adam and Eve, but immediately after sin entered the world, God’s presence causes fear (Genesis 3:8-9). From then on, even into the New Testament with John the Baptist, there is a trend of God slowly but surely directing the world to the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. God’s voice takes many forms, but they are overwhelmingly fantastical. Whether it’s a blinding light from heaven (Acts 9:1-7), voice from the storm (Job 38), burning bush that didn’t burn (Exodus 3), the sound of many waters (Ezekiel 43:2, Revelation 1:15), harps in the background (Revelation 14:2), dense cloud of thunder and lightning with an increasingly loud trumpet blast (Exodus 19), or even the visual that heaven is being torn open (Mark 1:9-11). There are also mysterious dreams of an unbeliever (Genesis 41:1-57) interpreted by Joseph and even overwhelming day dreams, or visions (Numbers 24:4). Even when angels arrive, they often have to tell people to not to be afraid. When Moses returned from Mount Sinai after receiving the Ten Commandments, his own face was so bright it scared everyone and he had to put a veil over it (Exodus 34:29-35). In fact, the people of Israel actually requested that God stop speaking directly to them because it felt like they are going to die (Deuteronomy 18:16).

There are also times where the hearer doesn’t seem to be overwhelmed, but in all those they are eventually certain it’s God (1 Samuel 3). The only example I could find of God speaking and not everyone understanding was when his voice was mistaken by some for loud thunder (John 12:23-29). Even in the well known example of God speaking in a “still small voice”, it was only after a strong wind blows apart rocks, an earthquake, and a fire (1 Kings 19:11-13). In fact, that verse seems to show that there are exceptions to the rule of fantastical presentations of God’s voice, but that it’s still a pretty good general rule. It seems there was some truth to Alanis Morissette as God in the obviously not canonical movie Dogma. God’s voice can be mind blowing.

I do believe that gift of the Holy Spirit does make all Christians today kind of like prophets (Acts 4:25), but even prophets didn’t have a direct line of God. Think of David, who is one of the central figures of the Old Testament, had the Spirit speak through him, and was a man after God’s own heart. Yet God sent another prophet, Nathan, to give him a message (2 Samuel 7). Even to the major prophets there doesn’t seem to be a regular back and forth conversation: Noah (5), Abraham (8), Isaac (2), Rebekah (1), Jacob (7). The reason you knows those names is that they were so noteworthy. That they heard from God. In fact in the Complete Red Letter Edition of the Bible has, “the direct spoken words of God are indicated in red on both the Old and New Testaments”. Like Jesus’ time on Earth, God’s interactions are numerable. God created everything, but God isn’t everything. He can be present in a specific place and time to have a large supernatural impact. How often that’s happened would be impossible to determine. It’s not obvious what is not seen or recorded in scripture (or since scripture), but there are definitely times of radio silence (1 Samuel 3). It’s also worth mentioning that although God definitely cares about the individual, his plans has always been for His people. When he gave a message to a follower, whether Old Testament or New, it was rarely if ever about personal issues that would only impact their lives.

Few people I have spoken to claim to hear the voice of God in the ways previously listed. Instead they have heard the voice of God stir inside them. Like the prophets, it’s an internal truth that they verbalize. This was in fact the primary means of communication God has used throughout the Bible all the way to and including his Son (Hebrews 1). If you count the Bible as God’s word then God has been pretty much using humans as his almost exclusive means of communication throughout history. For that reason, He doesn’t take the title of prophet lightly. If someone claims to speak for God and directs others those to disobey Him then they are obviously not a prophet from God and there is a death sentence (Deuteronomy 13). Another danger is one who predicts a future outcome, but that does not come true (Deuteronomy 18:15-22). God says they will be revealed to be true or false in time and if it turns out to be not from God he also puts out a warrant for their death. Even Jesus’ Apostles in the New Testament were specifically given the ability to do the supernatural and “confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it” (Mark 16:20).


The Conclusion

There was a time when I was concerned that a lot of people I knew were teetering on the edge of false prophecy. Claiming the voice of God where the evidence did not seem to support it. However, like is true in many prejudices, the more you get to know someone the better you understand the nuance of their perspective. I’ve come to much more benign conclusion. I actually don’t think many people claim this kind of experience with God. I think what they mean is that they feel led in a direction that doesn’t feel of their of their own mind. That’s great. I believe that. Say that. I experience that regularly. Just this morning I felt an external push to get up early to help my wife get the kids going. I’m confident the Spirit plays a role in this un-Harrison-like service, even if it’s just the lessons I’ve learned speaking to me from the past. And like David needing to hear from Samuel, it seems clear that sin can make this support from the Spirit more difficult. My concern is in placing an extra religious significance on personal decisions especially in placing these kinds of supernatural experiences above the day to day interaction with God’s word, His people, and His world. No one in the Bible ever says “I think God said this”. We live in the already Jesus, but not yet return of Jesus (Revelation 21:1). We won’t get the Garden of Eden back until the New Garden arrives. God has spoken to mankind and he has used mankind to speak for him. I’m also not discounting that he could speak today. After all, the kingdom is here (Matthew 3).

What I propose is to be more cautious with our vocabulary. I can think of few things more dangerous than claiming to speak for God. Simply say “I believe this or that”. Or say “I have the Holy Spirit and I believe this”. Let your yes be yes and your no be no, but don’t claim more than you have a right to (Matthew 5:37). The Holy Spirit does give you a taste of heaven, but it doesn’t give us the right to speak for heaven. I’m hesitant to even say the spirit is leading me, because that does happen, but it’s not for us to know exactly how and when (Ecclesiastes 11:5). And finally use scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17) or the by a group of Christians (Matthew 18:16) to back of claims.

I want to clear. I do not want anything here to close anyone off to the influence of God. I’m not sure I could even if I wanted to. My hope is the opposite. This study has helped me appreciate the times in my life where I did feel the leading of God (if only retroactively). The best decisions I’ve made thus far in my life (teaching career, marriage, improv, kids, etc) were made with the oversight and influence of the Almighty. God has never spoken to me directly, but I’m not opposed to the possibility that it will happen. However, I expect to be confident if I do hear it.

I should state the obvious. This post is not truth from the mouth of God. Speaking so decisively on this issue was very difficult for me as I want to be sure I am not overreaching. I’ve tried to use scripture as a source, but it’s always dangerous to go looking into the word of God to prove your own predetermined point. I’d point you to read 1 Kings 13. It’s a fairly unknown story about the dangers of misspeaking for God and how they can negatively impact even innocent bystanders. I hope to use all of this as a starting point for further conversation. I started this story with a reference to old church searches. Well, we are on the search again. To be clear, our moving on has nothing to do with this conversation. I’m certainly not convinced this difference in emphasis is one worth splitting over. In fact, the success of my house church proves that few things are. Our small house church has slowly changed geographically and we now live about a half an hour away from everyone. We are once again looking for a new church and I’m confident God will direct our steps (Proverbs 16:9).

Takeaways from "Crazy Busy"

These days I finish books about as often as I blog (not very much). One reason for the lack of both is busyness. This Spring Break I took some time and read "Crazy Buzy: A (mercifully) Short Book about a (really) Big Problem" by Kevin DeYong. Here are my takeaways:

Efficiency and punctuality are a part of functioning and showing respect in America, but they are not absolute virtues globally (and certainly not historically).

If you doubt the level of complexity and opportunity in America just visit the cereal aisle.

One way to combat the burden of busyness is to ensure your lifestyle has a "margin". That is, you plan to make room for the eventuality of the unplannable. To not do so is arrogance from a finite person.

A fallacy: "Busyness serves as a kind of existential reassurance, a hedge against emptiness. Obviously your life cannot possibly be silly or trivial or meaningless if you are so busy." -Tim Kreider of the NYT

A primary cause of busyness is pride. Ask yourself: "Am I trying to do good or to make myself look good?" I'm personally guilty of sacrificing the unconditional love of my family for the praise of those I'm less intimate with.

Jesus never ended a sermon with "do more or disobey". The original sin was not a lack of effort for God, it was an attempt to become Him.

This is not a permission to be apathetic. We should hurt for those who hurt. However, our circle of influence will always be smaller than our circle of concern.

Jesus spent 30 years in relative calm before a whirlwind 3 years of public ministry. So don't fear, Jesus (more than most pre-modern people) felt the weight you likely feel of busyness. He was constantly around the disciples, preached to thousands (without a microphone), was swamped by the sick, and sometimes even had to escape by boat. Yet, he certainly had to leave cities with more sick and hungry (literal and spiritual) to continue his larger Mission.

Busyness isn't a planning problem, it's a personal one. You must create a simple list of priorities or "unseized" time will flow towards our weakness and squeaky wheels. At the same time, we have to respect others' priorities and appreciate when we hear "no".

One of the most common American forms of busyness is Kindergarchy: Rule by children. "Children have more options and more opportunities, but parents have more worry and hassle. We have put unheard-of amounts of energy, time, and focus into our children. And yet, we assume their failures will almost certainly be our fault for not doing enough."

In his book, Selfish Reasons to Have Kids", economist Bryan Caplan (remember him?) cites numerous twin and adoption studies that conclude almost every desirable trait parents wish to pass down (health, happiness, intelligence, likeability) are more nature than nurture.

"One of the most resilient and cherished myths of parenting is that parenting creates the child" -Leslie Leyland Fields

However, Bryan Caplan does show 3 traits that can be impacted by parenting: religion, politics, and appreciation of how they were parented. So, perhaps we should just try and instill those and not stress about the others so we can "have a better life and a bigger family".

Technology helps us do more of what we want. So, it can (and often does) feed into our desire for busyness. Easy half-solution: put your phone out reach and/or create full on technology Sabbath day(s).

We actually work less and rest more than we did (farming was hard), but the two are significantly less separated. We work while we play (and visa versa) much more. I may have tried to post this near 5pm so you wouldn't read it at work.

"You can borrow time (from the future), but you can't steal it. There is no such thing as a free coffee boost.

A not very sexy, but correct, concluding point: "If you have creativity, ambition, and love, you will be busy." But how busy?


HT to my brother in law Stephen for the book!

Inconsequence of Baptism

When my wife and I moved to North Carolina and  began searching for a new church, I put out a request for Useful Church Criteria. I decided then to use church doctrine as my primary measure and we found ourselves at another reformed presbyterian church. After three years there we left with very few long term relationships. So when we moved to Greenville, we used intimacy as our primary criteria. For almost a year now, my wife and I have been attending a non-denominational house church of about twelve in Greenville. The church's larger gathering has clear baptist roots and now that we are pregnant we have come face to face with church doctrine once again. I am meeting with my church leaders today to discuss the issue and I assured them I would give it significant thought. Here are those thoughts.

The New Testament introduces a new sacrament to the God's people, baptism. There are several examples of baptism in the order of conversion and then baptism: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved", “Repent and be baptized", "Simon himself believed and was baptized", etc. However, because this was a new sacrament, none of them would have had a chance to be baptized as a child and some of them had already been baptized once by John the Baptist. The issue is complicated when household baptisms are discussed: "The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. When she and the members of her household were baptized", “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved —you and your household.”, "I also baptized the household of Stephanas", etc. Did these children, wives, servants all believe simultaneously? Possible, but it is unclear. Baptism is further muddled when you look at all the other ways the word is used: "in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”, "They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea", "don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?", or finally “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?”

This post is not primarily about how I side on the issue of baptism, it is about how I think the local church should deal with it. So I will quickly explain the conclusions that I have come to agree with. Like the New Testament term baptism, the Old Testament term circumcision is used in a variety of ways. Everything from the literal act, to more figurative, and to even more figurative. And in many of these uses, they apply to those who are special to God and/or those who are submissive to God. All the men of Israel were physically circumcised, but not all the men in Israel had figurative "circumcised hearts". So there is a presidence for sacraments to be a signal of God's devotion to men, not of men's devotion to God. In fact, I see few Biblical examples of people choosing God and numerous examples of God choosing people, who then resist, and are eventually overwhelmed by God's pursuit. Circumcision, grace, and salvation are all a gift, one that cannot be denied. Baptism, I believe, is the New Testament sign of that gift for all those within his church, believers and their children.

Though my conviction in the good news of Jesus is strong, my conclusion on the issue of baptism is not conclusive. For this reason I believe theological differences of this kind are inconsequential to church membership and leadership. For the baptist tradition to not allow membership on this basis and means to prevent 80% of current believers and essentially all believers prior to the rise of Anabaptists in the 1500's from joining your community in good conscience. Is scripture, the Holy Spirit, and the collective wisdom of the global church that unhelpful? When you consider the issues worth dividing the church over, and there are certainly some, I don't believe this is one.

I understand this post lacks both depth and breadth, but I stand confident my charge to "preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power." I should however clarify my likely overly controversial title. I do think baptism should have little consequence over church participation. I do not think baptism is trivial. It is inconsequential, not unimportant. It is mentioned way too often to ever be ignored. What is consequential is my church's support of my decisions as a father. I need them to trust my commitment to my family more than they trust their commitment to a specific type of baptism. That is the question I optimistically look forward to having answered at my meeting today.

Reader Request: Do Christians Really Believe?

I always take reader requests. Here's one from blogger and interesting thinker, Justin Wehr:

Here's one I'd like to see you respond to:

They believe that they believe, but their beliefs are of the easily disposable kind. Suppose you could take a devoutly religious person, ask him, “Are the tenets of your religion true?” and somehow convince him that the life of his child depends on getting the answer right. I’m guessing that nine times out of ten, you’d find yourself confronting a born-again infidel. The only reason that rarely happens is that there’s rarely an occasion when getting the right answer actually matters.

Quote from Steven Landsburg that I came across in this post: http://bit.ly/xpn9Dh 

Here's what I want to know 

• Which (if any) tenets of your religion would you hold onto and which (if any) would you discard if your kid's life were on the line? 

• In your estimate, what percentage of pious people would become, in the above situation, "born again infidels"?

One of the things I noticed on my summer European tour is how global cultural religion is. The American South is famous for religious culture, but it exists everywhere and in every religion. First I'll respond to a specific points made in the post linked above:

If there really is a heavenly and eternal paradise awaiting us after death, one would think more people would be in a rush to get there, right?

I can only speak for Christianity, but the Church mostly agrees that although we long for heaven, we have a mission here on earth. So suicide or a reckless life does not fit with Biblical teachings. Now if the writer had complained that Christians don't live out the second half (the mission part), then that is a legitimate complaint. One that atheist Penn Jillette makes really candidly in this video.

To put it simply, most [religious people] don’t live their lives as if they absolutely believed in the words their religious texts profess. For example, if I truly believed in the Christian God, with absolute certainty, I would live my life in a way consistent with that.

I'm curious what he means by this. If he means living a "good life", that is not the description the Bible seems to describe (Old and New Testament). The Christian life is one of repentance, sin, growth, hardship, joy, etc. And for that, I have witnessed many living that life. Which I don't think this writer gets:

Most religions assert that God is watching our actions even when others aren’t watching. If this were true, my inner economist would tell me that people would avoid displeasing God at all costs.

Now to respond to Justin's blockquote. I think the opposite is true. When people's lives are on the line, we see more religious conversion than abandonment. It doesn't seem to me that this person knows many Christians. I think most I know (let's say 90%), my self included, would not waiver. The biggest belief I am personally sure of is the grace of Jesus. I know of no other way to explain my own failures and my own triumphs. The rest of Biblical doctrine is more malleable. For example I now go to a church that practice believers baptism, which I'm not convinced of. I go to a church that doesn't believe in predestination, which I am convinced of. But I still find myself connected our surety in Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.

The Gospel in One Experiment

This was done in the US and Japan:

Prior to reading a scenario in which they were to imagine being mistreated by their classmates, the participants were randomly assigned to one of three perspective-taking conditions: (a) recall times when they mistreated or hurt others in the past; (b) imagine how the victimized classmate would think, feel, and behave in the scenario; or (c) imagine the situation as the personal victim. Participants then read the scenario, which was followed by an elaborate apology from the classmate. Results from both cultures indicated that, compared with the participants in the control condition, the participants in the recall-self-as-wrongdoer condition were significantly more likely to accept the apology from the classmate and forgive the transgression.

Five Things Learned at BJU's Comedy of Errors

One of the connections I've made in Greenville through Alchemy was able to get me some free tickets to a Bob Jones production of The Comedy of Errors (click on either link if you don't know what Bob Jones or Comedy of Errors are). Here are five specific things I didn't know before:

1) The plot of the movie the Parent Trap is Shakespearean.
2) Without introduction, the entire crowd sings the national anthem before each play.
3) A glowing wand directing traffic will mostly just wave you in the direction you were already heading, even it's it right out the entrance.
4) I can't understand what is being said in the first half of a Shakespeare play, but by intermission it's like I've learned a new language.
5) BJU students treat plays like prom, but prom from the 1950's. Dates meet each other at the theater (because I assume they can't go to each others' dorm), each wears their best old fashioned formal dress and the men bring flowers and chocolates.

Despite it's idiosyncrasies it was a much needed and enjoyable date night for me and the lady.

Economic Strategy to Fight Protesters

I've always been skeptical of the benefits of protesting as a way to shout your vote. The infamous Westboro Baptist Church, as I've shared before, is a great example of protest gone bad. This may be the best strategy to get rid of them:

Comedy’s Lovable Queen of Mean Lisa Lampanelli made good on her promise to donate $1,000 to the Gay Men’s Health Crisis for every Westboro Baptist Church member who showed up to protest her recent stand-up show in Topeka, taking to Twitter after the show to say “Thanks to these a-holes, $44,000 will be donated to the GMHC!!!” 

She later bumped it up by $6k, tweeting “WBC inbreds counted 48 protesters, so I won’t quibble. I’ll make it an even $50,000!!!” 

Best part? The donation will be made in the hate group’s name. Thanks WBC!

Apparently this strategy has also worked for Planned Parenthood.

Why Fire and Brimstone Works

Here's the study:

People’s desires to see themselves as moral actors can contribute to their striving for and achievement of a sense of self-completeness. The authors use self-completion theory to predict (and show) that recalling one’s own (im)moral behavior leads to compensatory rather than consistent moral action as a way of completing the moral self. In three studies, people who recalled their immoral behavior reported greater participation in moral activities (Study 1), reported stronger prosocial intentions (Study 2), and showed less cheating (Study 3) than people who recalled their moral behavior.

It recalibrates our moral math.

Benefits of Simplified Morality

I spend a lot of time trying to simplify complicated topics. Everything from immigration, to voting, to WikiLeaks. Like the title of this blog suggests, I'm trying to filter a lot of information into understandable bits. At the same time, I've longed to show just how un-simple many topics are. Everything from charity, to foreign policy, to human/animal relations. This comes from one of my dislikes of oversimplifying issues that are not black and white. But yet we simplify things all the time. We simplify stories to make them convincing. I simplify US History to make it digestible. We all simplify ourselves into clear likable labels. This might be why:

We propose that the rule that is cognitively most accessible during the decision making process (e.g., “Save lives” or “Do not kill”) will influence how people solve these moral dilemmas. Three studies are reported that indeed demonstrate that the most accessible rule influences willingness to intervene within footbridge dilemmas. This effect is found even when the accessibility of the rule is induced subliminally.

By creating a helpful set of personal rules we increase the likelihood we will follow them. We can improve our moral math by simplifying the equations. This is why when the normal rules of society break down, so do our personal moral standards. So have a set of moral rules to live by, but be sure not to overestimate their scope.

The Problem with Being Rich

Since one of my most popular posts (and several since), I've tried to convince my readers that we are rich. My goal is not to show that wealth leads to happiness, but to put financial stress in perspective. If we worry less about money, perhaps we can worry more about what really matters. I recently came across this sermon from a pastor in California. In it he does two things I think should be done more in American churches. He reminds them their rich and then he warns them about it. The Bible is clear that in God's economy, wealth can be a hindrance. I'm usually pretty weary talking about controversial religious topics here (not here), not because it's not important, but because I fear trivializing such vulnerable issues. I don't necessarily endorse everything he says, and it pretty long, but I highly recommended this sermon.

Worthwhile Sentences on Death

From the oldest federal judge in the country: "At this age, I'm not even buying green bananas."

From Justin Scott: "either you cannot bear the idea of a horrific earthquake in Japan (or Haiti, or China) with God, or you cannot bear it without him."

From The Atlantic: "And they never—and I mean never—ask the critical Kantian question: what if everyone in the world consumed these supposedly sustainable alternatives to conventional food?"

From Oprah Winfrey: ‎"Forgiveness is letting go of the hope that the past can be changed."

From Justin Landwehr: "Life is too short to spend it doing things that you wish would hurry up and end."

Update: From Harry Houdini: “Nobody wants to see a man die, but everyone wants to be there when it happens.”

Dedication Begets Dedication Revisited

Last year I mentioned how dedication towards one person, say a child with special needs, increases dedication towards others. Meaning, our ability to sacrifice doesn't burn out, it strengthens. Here's an experiment that supports this idea:

The ability of compassion felt toward one person to reduce punishment directed at another was examined. The use of a staged interaction in which one individual cheats to earn higher compensation than others resulted in heightened third-party punishment being directed at the cheater. However, among participants who were induced to feel compassion toward a separate individual, punishment of the cheater disappeared even though the cheater clearly intended to cheat and showed no remorse for doing so. Moreover, additional analyses revealed that the reduction in punishment was directly mediated by the amount of compassion participants experienced toward the separate individual.

I feel like there is an important religious lesson here.

Charitable Impact of Religion

Recently came across this essay describing the differences in giving between believers and non-believers:

The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.

And this has nothing to do with income or political ideology:

Note that neither political ideology nor income is responsible for much of the charitable differences between secular and religious people. For example, religious liberals are 19 points more likely than secular liberals to give to charity, while religious conservatives are 28 points more likely than secular conservatives to do so. In other words, religious conservatives (who give and volunteer at rates of 91 percent and 67 percent) appear to differ from secular liberals (who give and volunteer at rates of 72 percent and 52 percent) more due to religion than to politics. Similarly, giving differences do not disappear when income is neutralized. This should not be particularly surprising, however, because the sccbs data show practically no income differences between the groups.

Not only are they donating more often, the religion are donating more total:

The average annual giving among the religious is $2,210, whereas it is $642 among the secular. Similarly, religious people volunteer an average of 12 times per year, while secular people volunteer an average of 5.8 times. To put this into perspective, religious people are 33 percent of the population but make 52 percent of donations and 45 percent of times volunteered.

And this isn't just a measure of relgious giving to religious charities:

Religious people are more generous than secular people with nonreligious causes as well as with religious ones. While 68 percent of the total population gives (and 51 percent volunteers) to nonreligious causes each year, religious people are 10 points more likely to give to these causes than secularists (71 percent to 61 percent) and 21 points more likely to volunteer (60 percent to 39 percent). For example, religious people are 7 points more likely than secularists to volunteer for neighborhood and civic groups, 20 points more likely to volunteer to help the poor or elderly, and 26 points more likely to volunteer for school or youth programs. It seems fair to say that religion engenders charity in general — including nonreligious charity.

The article closes with this:

Houses of worship might teach their congregants the religious duty to give, and about both the physical and spiritual needs of the poor. Simply put, people may be more likely to learn charity inside a church, synagogue, or mosque than outside. If charity is indeed a learned behavior, it may be that houses of worship are only one means (albeit an especially efficacious one) to teach it. Secularists interested in increasing charitable giving and volunteering among their ranks might spend some effort thinking of alternative ways to foster these habits.

Hat tip to Justin Scott.

Don't Give Money to Panhandlers

Finally, a newspaper confirming what so many already know. From The Guardian:

But Thames Reach is citing "overwhelming evidence that people who beg on the street do so to buy hard drugs, particularly crack cocaine and heroin". Outreach team members estimate 80% of people begging do so to support a drug habit. The research is corroborated by the results of drug tests by the police on a group of people arrested for begging in Westminster; 70% tested positive for crack cocaine or heroin.

"Giving to people who beg is not a benign act without consequences," said Mike Nicholas, a spokesman for Thames Reach. "As an organisation that has worked with people on the street for over 30 years, we have seen many lives damaged by hard drugs and alcohol misuse. We have even lost people through overdoses in situations where a significant portion of the money they spent on drugs came from members of the public giving loose change."

Thames Reach is a London-based charity that works with the homeless. Here's how they help:

She escaped her addiction when Mark Smith, an outreach worker, persuaded her to stop living rough and get medical help. It was a huge breakthrough for someone whose life was a cycle of begging, prostitution and addiction and who had spent almost two decades living in office cupboards, a tent on marshland and in a cardboard box under a railway bridge.

"Mark won my trust, he didn't talk down to me," she said. "He was very patient and I used to look forward to seeing him, sharing his fags and having a burger."

After Mark had asked her "14 or 15 times" to think about coming off the streets, Tracy relented and is now off heroin and on methadone.

I'm certainly not trying to encourage you to not be generous with your time or your money. I simply want good intentions to be met with good results. We all desire to do good, but don't let the guilt of not giving lead you to donate to the detriment of the receiver. Here are some suggestions I've gathered:

1. The goal in helping is to move the needy towards less need.
2. Don't give cash, gifts, or even groceries (anything can be traded).
3. Relationships are the best and hardest way to change.
4. I'm afraid often we pay beggars not out of mercy, but so they will leave us alone.
5. Work is inherently good for society and the worker. Finding them a job can be a great place begin for them and your relationship.
6. Know your neighborhood so well that you know what it needs and can decipher between hustlers and the needy.
7. Donate these organizations that help the homeless. Won't make you as warm and fuzzy, but they have a better track record at making others feel warm and fuzzy (or at least warm).
8. Find the local resources in your area (churches, charities, government services). Keep their card and contact information on you.
9. If your area doesn't have a satisfactory resource, make one. 
10. Live in a neighborhood that allows you to help your neighbors. Remember we need to live with those we help.

These suggestions scare me because they require more of me than I am currently giving. Most people agree that we are at least partially responsible for those around us. Starting with family, then community, and so on. We are not only responsible for how and how much we give. Like in the personal example above described, change is hard, change is exhausting, but positive change is worthwhile.

Don't Let You Get in the Way

Although I've been mostly positive about my own blogging, one of my big worries is that once my ideas go public, they will become static. That in an effort to not contradict myself, I will be less likely to adopt different ideas. Even worse, if this is true for me, then maybe it's also true of the billions of other people putting there thoughts and ideas on social networking sites everyday. Though there may be benefits to this (who's to say the new you is better?), I think most personal growth is just that, growth.

Economist Robin Hanson once published a list of "signs that your opinions function more to signal loyalty and ability than to estimate truth" on his blog Overcoming Bias. Here they are:

1. You find it hard to be enthusiastic for something until you know that others oppose it.
2. You have little interest in getting clear on what exactly is the position being argued.
3. Realizing that a topic is important and neglected doesn't make you much interested.
4. You have little interest in digging to bigger topics behind commonly argued topics.
5. You are less interested in a topic when you don’t foresee being able to talk about it.
6. You are uncomfortable taking a position near the middle of the opinion distribution.
7. You are uncomfortable taking a position of high uncertainty about who is right.
8. You care far more about current nearby events than similar distant or past/future events.
9. You find it easy to conclude that those who disagree with you are insincere or stupid.
10. You are reluctant to change your publicly stated positions in response to new info.
11. You are reluctant to agree a rival’s claim, even if you had no prior opinion on the topic.
12. You are reluctant to take a position that raises the status of rivals.
13. You care more about consistency between your beliefs than about belief accuracy.
14. You go easy on sloppy arguments by folks on “your side.”
15. You have little interest in practical concrete implications of commonly argued topics.
16. Your opinion doesn't much change after talking with smart folks who know more.
17. You are especially eager to drop names when explaining positions and arguments.
18. You find it hard to list weak points and counter-arguments on your positions.
19. You feel passionately about a topic, but haven’t sought out much evidence.
20. You are reluctant to not have an opinion on commonly discussed topics.

Similarly, entrepreneur Paul Graham has written an essay on the topic of "keeping your identity small". He speaks specifically about problem conversations with religion and politics:

More generally, you can have a fruitful discussion about a topic only if it doesn't engage the identities of any of the participants. What makes politics and religion such minefields is that they engage so many people's identities. But you could in principle have a useful conversation about them with some people. And there are other topics that might seem harmless, like the relative merits of Ford and Chevy pickup trucks, that you couldn't safely talk about with others.

The most intriguing thing about this theory, if it's right, is that it explains not merely which kinds of discussions to avoid, but how to have better ideas. If people can't think clearly about anything that has become part of their identity, then all other things being equal, the best plan is to let as few things into your identity as possible.

Most people reading this will already be fairly tolerant. But there is a step beyond thinking of yourself as x but tolerating y: not even to consider yourself an x. The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you.

What does this mean for my desire for perspective and the descriptive terms I have on the top right of this blog?

Economics of Hanukkah

I've done the economics of Christmas, and since I'm an equal opportunity blogger, here's one for you Old Testament only readers:

In case you're lost, here's some economics help and here's some Jewish history help.

The Curse of Volunteering Abroad

Two years ago I posted on the problems of direct country to country aid. Apparently well-intentioned Westerners are also doing harm in another way, volunteering:

The study reveals that short-term volunteer projects can do more harm than good. Wealthy tourists prevent local workers from getting much-needed jobs, especially when they pay to volunteer; hard-pressed institutions waste time looking after them and money upgrading facilities; and abused or abandoned children form emotional attachments to the visitors, who increase their trauma by disappearing back home.

There are also problems of Americans giving money to orphanages which are kept purposely squalid to elicit more pity. These:

"orphans" might have been bought from impoverished parents, coerced from loving families or simply rented for the night. An official study found just a quarter of children in these so-called orphanages have actually lost both parents. And these private ventures are proliferating fast: the numbers increased by 65% in just three years.

And don't just send donations either:

We have seen it with the dumping of cheap food and clothes, devastating industries and encouraging a dependency culture. And now we see it with "voluntourism", the fastest-growing sector of one of the fastest-growing industries on the planet.

And finally, here's why we do it:

Inevitably, the needs of impoverished communities are subverted by the demands of wealthy visitors. Alexia Nestora ran the North American arm of a major "voluntourism" group and admitted such firms loved orphanage stops. "They sell the best and are the most tearjerking projects to pitch to the media. Volunteers come away with the classic picture with an orphan and tell all their friends about their experience

I wouldn't totally negate the value of the experience of short-term mission work. I spend enough time here trying to convince you you're rich, when one trip abroad can do it much more effectively. But my fear is that this becomes a way to pay to remove global guilt instead of actually solving the problem. If you want to go on a trip, go on a trip. If you want to help specific people in need, I'm convinced the only ways are to live with them or have them live with you.

Limits of Human Progress and the Power of Prayer

Earlier this year I posted C.S. Lewis' fictional description of hell, a world without scarcity. Before that I had confessed that a world without death be very challenging to my understand of Christianity. Recently, my good friend Justin posted a great interview with Christian and renowned scientist, Francis Collins. Although the entire conservation is worth reading, I especially enjoyed his response to the question of scientific innovation removing suffering from our world:

In spite of the fact that we have achieved all these wonderful medical advances and made it possible to live longer and eradicate diseases, we will probably still figure out ways to argue with each other and sometimes to kill each other, out of our self-righteousness and our determination that we have to be on top. So the death rate will continue to be one per person, whatever the means. We may understand a lot about biology, we may understand a lot about how to prevent illness, and we may understand the life span. But I don't think we'll ever figure out how to stop humans from doing bad things to each other. That will always be our greatest and most distressing experience here on this planet, and that will make us long the most for something more.

Mankind has come far, but we still have a long way to go. One way to do that is through prayer. Again, Francis Collins:

Also, prayer for me is not a way to manipulate God into doing what we want him to do. Prayer for me is much more a sense of trying to get into fellowship with God. I'm trying to figure out what I should be doing rather than telling Almighty God what he should be doing. Look at the Lord's Prayer. It says, "Thy will be done." It wasn't, "Our Father who art in Heaven, please get me a parking space."

This idea of prayer influencing the prayer isn't just theological, it's measurable:

the participants were randomly assigned to one of four daily activities: praying for the well-being of their partner, engaging in undirected prayer, thinking about positive aspects of their partner or reflecting upon their day. Participants did as they were asked for four weeks, and kept written logs of what they were praying (or thinking). At the end of this period, the team again measured infidelity and how sacred the participants felt their romantic relationships were.

Dr Fincham and his colleagues report in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology that although all participants had similar infidelity ratings, averaging 3.5, to start with, at the end those ratings varied considerably between the four groups. People who had prayed for their partners averaged 2.4, significantly lower than their initial scores, whereas those who thought positively about their partners or considered their day both showed ratings of 3.9—significantly higher.

[...]

Scores reflecting participants’ views of how sacred their romantic relationships were changed during the four-week period as well. Values at the start of the study were much the same among all participants, averaging 3.2. However, by the end of the study, those who had prayed for their partners showed stronger beliefs that their relationships were sacred than those who had just had positive thoughts about their partners, with average scores of 3.7 and 2.8 respectively. Dr Fincham suspects that the act of praying about romantic partners leads people to view their relationship as something sacred and not to be damaged. This, he argues, is the force that is reducing infidelity in the study.

Though that data is self-reported, it was confirmed by unbiased observers giving their own assumptions about changes in fidelity.