What is a university for?

Universities have changed dramatically over the course of my lifetime—a lifetime which has included 9 years as a student and 32 years as an academic, across 6 universities in Australia and the USA. Australian universities are receiving increasing media attention due to failures in management and governance, including a recent ABC Four Corners documentary.  Numerous books by academics lament the state of Australian universities.  They appear to be all about four M's: money, marketing, management, and metrics. Learning, understanding, and discovery for its own sake seems alien and marginalised. Questions that need more attention include What is a university for? and What values should a university embody? In the New College Lectures for 2025 Peter Harrison went much deeper than the public debates and considered the role of secularisation, values, and virtues. 

This is the beginning of an article I wrote What is a university for? A Christian Vision for the Modern Secular University 

CASE subscribers can read a nicely formatted, illustrated, and hyperlinked article here.

Embodiments of competing visions of the Christian faith

 I have always wanted to read the classic novel The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky, but have been deterred by its length. I am attracted by the way it weaves deep philosophical and theological debates into a narrative about murder. Each of the characters presents competing positions.

Well, popular culture just presented me with something similar: the movie, Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery.

On one level, this is a classic murder mystery, being the third in the Knives Out franchise featuring the eccentric detective Benoit Blanc.

Note: if you have not seen the movie, this post does not contain any spoilers.

Four distinct competing philosophical and theological positions are associated with the movie.

Atheistic rationalism. This denies any spiritual realities (naturalism), elevates reason, and claims that Christianity is "just a story" that provides comfort to desperate people. This view is espoused by the detective Benoit Blanc.

Culture war Christianity. The world is divided into good and evil. Sexual immorality is destroying society. Increasing secularisation in the Western world has led to the decline of Christendom. The USA is no longer a Christian nation. Christians need to fight back. Desperate times require desperate measures. The end justifies the means. The dominant emotions expressed and used to control people are fear, anger, judgment, power, and shame. This vision of Christianity is embodied in the priest, Jefferson Wicks. Another character, a social media influencer, sees this culture war as the basis for a successful political career.

Jesus-centric Christianity.  That term is a tautology, as surely the word "Christianity" means it is centred on Jesus Christ! But I use the term to contrast it with "Culture war Christianity". Significant elements of Jesus life and teaching were love, forgiveness, compassion, mercy, and hospitality. He was a friend of sinners, tax collectors, and prostitutes. In fact, his biggest opponents were the Pharisees, religious leaders who were exclusive, angry, self-righteous, legalistic, and desperately wanted to reclaim the power and status of their nation. In the movie, the character who is all about Jesus-centric Christianity is the young priest, Jud Duplenticy.

In the clip below, Jud debates Benoit.

There are also some powerful scenes where Jud debates Jefferson. Unfortunately, I could not find a clip of those. You will have to watch the movie. There is a good one beginning around 27 minutes into the Netflix version.

There is another competing vision of Christianity.

A generic humanistic spirituality. This espouses the values of love, forgiveness, grace, mercy, and compassion. Jesus is seen as a nice example of this, and the church as a community that can practise these values. It is described as "faith", but the object of the faith is not clear. It seems to be a belief that if people just look into their hearts, they will find a goodness that will enable them to live out the values. The historical basis for Christianity and traditional doctrines are overlooked or seen as outdated or irrelevant. In particular, the divinity of Jesus, the sinful nature of humanity, the significance of Jesus death on the cross, repentance, and the power of the Holy Spirit to transform people are not considered fundamental. Jesus does provide an amazing and inspiring example of human compassion, mercy, and forgiveness. However, he does so much more. He calls on his followers to repent of their sin. His death is the basis for us to forgive others. We forgive because he forgave us. We love because he loved us.

I did not see this vision represented by a character in the movie. However, many reviews of the movie seem to see Jud as representing this vision.

The video below presents a nice analysis of the movie [including spoilers], but presents Jud's faith as generic, rather than Jesus-centric.

 

This article has helpful background on the writer and director of the movie.

Rian Johnson’s Explains How His Religious Upbringing Inspired ‘Wake Up Dead Man’

Questions to evaluate technologies

How do we evaluate the benefits and costs of technologies? Neil Postman spent a lifetime wrestling with such questions. In a talk given in 1998, he considered five things we need to know about technological change. Postman's enduring influence and relevance are marked by the fact that these five things featured in a column in The Washington Post, "Is the Internet Evil?" by Christine Emba, published in 2018.

Below, I summarise the five ideas from Postman's talk and provide questions (in italics) we should ask about any technology, particularly Artificial Intelligence (AI).

1. All technological change is a trade-off. 

"the greater the wonders of a technology, the greater will be its negative consequences" 

Don't just ask the question "What will a new technology do?" Also ask, "What will a new technology undo?"

"a sophisticated perspective on technological change includes one’s being skeptical of Utopian and Messianic visions drawn by those who have no sense of history or of the precarious balances on which culture depends."

Through adoption of the technology, what will we lose, individually and as a society?

2. The advantages and disadvantages of a new technology are never distributed evenly among the population.

Who will benefit? Who will be harmed? 

Winners will try to persuade losers that they will benefit as well.

Benefits and harms can relate to employment, finances, social status, health, and political power.

3.  Embedded in every technology are powerful ideas. 

"These ideas are often hidden from our view because they are of a somewhat abstract nature. But this should not be taken to mean that they do not have practical consequences."

"The telegraphic person values speed, not introspection. The television person values immediacy, not history... the computer person values information, not knowledge, certainly not wisdom." 

"The medium is the message."

 What ideas are embedded in the technology?

How does it make us use our minds and bodies?

How does it affect our personal relationships and social cohesion?

4. Technological change is not additive; it is ecological. It changes everything.

"The consequences of technological change are always vast, often unpredictable and largely irreversible."

The entrepreneurs who started the television industry "did not mean to turn political discourse into a form of entertainment."

The consequences can be social, economic, political, environmental, religious, and health-related.

What are the unintended consequences of the technology?

5. When a technology becomes mythic, it is always dangerous because it is then accepted as it is, and is therefore not easily susceptible to modification or control.

"...our enthusiasm for technology can turn into a form of idolatry and our belief in its beneficence can be a false absolute. The best way to view technology is as a strange intruder, to remember that technology is not part of God’s plan but a product of human creativity and hubris, and that its capacity for good or evil rests entirely on human awareness of what it does for us and to us."

How does the technology lead to idolatry? Do people worship it, its creators, or its owners?

Finally,

Do we use the technology or does the technology use us? 

In different words, will we shape our lives to fit the requirements of the technology, rather than have our values shape our use of the technology?

Facing my pride and my prejudice

I used to think of Jane Austen as a writer of soppy romance novels, which have since been adapted into popular movies and TV series. I had watched some but had never read the novels. I thought of it as "chick lit" that has stood the test of time. Well, my pride and prejudice deceived me! In our extended family book club, we have been reading Pride and Prejudice. I now see that Austen uses romance as a backdrop for biting social satire,  insights into human folly, and the development of virtue.

This is illustrated in the following quotation, considered to be key to the novel. The heroine Elizabeth Bennett becomes aware of her own lack of virtue.

 "She grew absolutely ashamed of herself. Of neither Darcy nor Wickham could she think without feeling that she had been blind, partial, prejudiced, absurd. How despicably have I acted!" she cried; "I, who have prided myself on my discernment! I, who have valued myself on my abilities! who have often disdained the generous candour of my sister, and gratified my vanity in useless or blameable mistrust! How humiliating is this discovery! Yet, how just a humiliation! Had I been in love, I could not have been more wretchedly blind! But vanity, not love, has been my folly. Pleased with the preference of one, and offended by the neglect of the other, on the very beginning of our acquaintance, I have courted prepossession and ignorance, and driven reason away, where either were concerned. Till this moment I never knew myself."

        Pride and Prejudice, Chapter 36.

Austen's narrative beautifully illustrates two important truths: we are social beings, and money significantly influences many aspects of our lives. On one level, we may think these are fairly obvious truths. However, we need Austen to show their profundity, depth and subtlety. In Austen's time and context, these truths played out in specific ways that may seem alien to us. Nevertheless, they are still true today.

We are social beings

Being children of the Enlightenment and living in a culture of individualism, we love to believe that we are rugged independent individuals who can do as we please. An important and controversial question in sociology is the relationship between personal agency and social structure. How does the latter constrain the former?

The moral philosopher, Alasdair MacIntyre, wrote in After Virtue:

“We enter upon a stage which we did not design and we find ourselves part of an action that was not of our making. Each of us being a main character in his own drama plays subordinate parts in the dramas of others, and each drama constrains the others.”  

[This important book is discussed more below.]

We desire social relations and sometimes enjoy them. We may crave social affirmation in the form of status and acclaim. We fear social censure.

Pride and Prejudice is a story about social relations. All the characters, regardless of their wealth, seem to do is socialise. It is an endless stream of balls, dinners, visits, and parlour games.

People are judged based on their wealth, family heritage, property, dress, physical appearance, social etiquette, conversational skills, moral character, musical performance, ... What a burden! Furthermore, these judgements may be made hastily and with prejudice, particularly towards those of a different social class.

The moral failure of one family member may forever condemn others to social censure.

The picture is the British ten-pound note, featuring Jane Austen, issued in 2017, and the subject of some controversy. I find it ironic that Austen's image is now on currency, given that money features so significantly in her novels.

The power of money

In Pride and Prejudice, money defines social status and the suitability of potential marriage partners. The famous opening sentences of the novel capture this.

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.

However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters."

However, the power of money goes beyond this. It shapes attitudes, anxieties, and action. The value of a person is equated with their monetary wealth. The potential future lack of money creates anxiety. Potential financial windfalls motivate action, including manipulation. Money is used to solve problems, such as Wickham eloping with the young Lydia Bennett.

Again, our context today is different from Pride and Prejudice. In marriage, money plays less of a role, but not an insignificant one. On the other hand, money shapes politics, religion, and education profoundly. Perhaps more than Austen's era. 

The Economist recently had a nice article, How Jane Austen revealed the economic basis of society: Some unacknowledged truths about money

John Dickson's podcast Undeceptions has a wonderful episode on Jane Austen. Interestingly, Dickson reveals that the title of his podcast, Undeceptions, was inspired by a C.S. Lewis essay on Jane Austen.

The episode includes a discussion of Alasdair MacIntyre and After Virtue.  For perspective, according to Wikipedia, this work 

"is one of the most important works of Anglophone moral and political philosophy in the 20th century.^[3] "

In it, MacIntyre pays homage to Jane Austen as providing the narrative form needed to resolve the modern problems that he identifies, such as morality being rooted in emotivism and subjectivity.

“C.S. Lewis saw in her an essentially Christian writer. It is her uniting of Christian and Aristotelian themes in a determinate social context that makes Jane Austen the last great effective imaginative voice of the tradition of thought about, and practice of, the virtues which I have tried to identify.”

Finally, Why Cornel West loves Jane Austen 

"Cornel West views "Sistah Jane" as a radical revisionary whose promotion of courageous truth-speaking amid a tragicomic theater of humanity challenges us to change society by changing ourselves, by cultivating simple but now revolutionary virtues." 

I thank my daughter for bringing to my attention that Cornel West is an Austen fan.

Science, technology, and ethics

The rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has stimulated discussions about its potential value and dangers. Before engaging in discussions about AI specifically, it is worth making some general observations about the relationship between science, technology, and ethics.

In the discussion that follows, you might consider how it relates to concrete examples such as screwdrivers, guns, washing machines, cars, smartphones, or AI. They vary greatly in their capability, impact, scope of application, and interaction with our humanity.

Science is not technology. Science and engineering are different academic disciplines. Science and technology are distinct, albeit interrelated, entities. Science is concerned with gaining an understanding of how the material world works. Technologies are tools, machines, and devices that may make human life easier or better. Note that deciding what is "better" is a subjective judgement and involves human values.

Scientific knowledge is neither necessary nor sufficient for the development of technology. Steam engines were developed before the science of thermodynamics, which describes how they work. Nicolas Tesla was a brilliant inventor. But many of his beliefs about the science of electromagnetism were wrong. Large Language Models (LLMs) work extremely well, but we have a poor understanding of why. On the flip side, scientists and engineers file endless patents for possible new technologies that never come to fruition. We understand the science behind how a quantum computer will work, but building a useful one remains elusive.

Scientific understanding sometimes leads to improvements in existing technology and the development of new technologies. However, there is no guaranteed connection. Sometimes tinkering is enough. Scientists commonly use the prospect of new technologies (and the associated potential economic benefits) in their arguments for the public funding of their research. Consequently, they and the government agencies that fund them may be reluctant to acknowledge that the science-technology link is not as strong as sometimes claimed.

Technology shows that science works. There are laws of nature. Nature acts in predictable and repeatable ways. Thousands of planes fly safely every day. Most phones will probably work for years. If most of the laws of physics were wrong, a lot of technology would not work. The power of technology should inspire awe and wonder at the way the world works, our ability to understand it, and to manipulate it.

Is a technology intrinsically neutral, good, or evil?  

For any technology, you may encounter people advocating one of these moral perspectives. 

Neutral. A technology itself does not do anything. It has no morality. Only people have morality. They can choose to use the technology for good or evil.

Good. By definition, technology makes human life easier or better. Furthermore, history shows this. Consider the significant improvements in human health and prosperity that have come with more and more technology. The creation of technology also reflects human creativity and the desire to improve the lives of others.

Evil. Given humans' propensity for greed, violence, and domination, it is inevitable that any technology will be used eventually by some people for destructive purposes.

To illustrate the moral ambiguity associated with scientific research, consider the Harvard organic chemist, Louis Fieser. He discovered both antimalarial drugs that have saved countless lives and napalm, used in chemical warfare.

The neutral position is helpful if it leads us to focus discussions on good and evil ways a specific technology is used or might be used. It is unhelpful if it is used to avoid ethical discussions.

Most technologies have good and bad uses. The extent to which some uses are good or bad varies greatly between technologies. We also need to evaluate the likelihood of good or bad outcomes, often unanticipated. The impacts of a technology are multifaceted. They include health, environmental, social, economic, and political impacts.

Our view of humanity shapes our view of technology

Those with a positive view of humanity tend to also be positive about technology. They are optimistic about people's ability to choose to use a technology for their own good and that of others. Any problems can be minimised or solved.

However, if you think people have a propensity for greed, abuse, addiction, and deception, you will be wary about technology.

A Christian perspective on humanity affirms both the goodness and depravity of humanity. We are made in the image of God and have the potential for creativity, personal agency, and benevolence. On the other hand, we are sinful and broken and the potential for evil. This is a dialectic. Different Christians and traditions have differing views of just how good or evil we are.

The Enlightenment worldview matters

Several beliefs characteristic of the Enlightenment lead to a positive and optimistic view of technology and to opposition to placing limits on its use.

Optimism in Progress.

All problems are solvable in principle.

Humans are emancipated and autonomous individuals.

The history of the impact of technology suggests we should question these claims.

Negative consequences of technology should not be used to criticise science. Science did not create these problems. Humans created them as a result of choices about how to use the technology.

In future posts, I hope to discuss questions we should ask about technologies and then use them to consider AI.

The character and disposition of an evangelical theologian

Reading my previous post about Evangelical Theology: An Introduction by Karl Barth may leave the impression that Barth mostly discusses academic theology as an academic discipline in which the theologian strives for objectivity and distances themselves from the object of study. However, the emphasis and perspective of the book is quite different. Much of the book is about the personal character and disposition that an evangelical theologian must have. Theology is personal and practical. It is subjective in that the object of study [the triune God that was revealed in history and recorded in Scripture] places the theologian in "crisis". The theologian is judged, critiqued, and loved by the living Word.

The Table of Contents illustrates how much of the book is about the life of an evangelical theologian.

• Commentary
• I. The Place of Theology
  • The Word
  • The Witnesses
  • The Community
  • The Spirit
• II. Theological Existence
  • Wonder
  • Concern
  • Commitment
  • Faith
• III. The Threat to Theology
  • Solitude
  • Doubt
  • Temptation
  • Hope
• IV. Theological Work
• Prayer
• Study
• Service
• Love

The importance of humility recurs throughout the book. An evangelical theologian must be humble. They cannot operate with presuppositions, dismiss tradition, and or place themself above historical witnesses to God's self-revelation.

"The position of theology,... , can in no wise be exalted above that of the biblical witnesses. The post-Biblical theologian may, no doubt, possess a better astronomy, geography, zoology, psychology, physiology, and so on than these biblical witnesses possessed; but as for the Word of God, he is not justified in comporting himself in relationship to those witnesses as though he knew more about the Word than they. 

 

He is neither a president of a seminary, nor the Chairman of the Board of some Christian Institute of Advanced Theological Studies, who might claim some authority over the prophets and apostles. He cannot grant or refuse them a hearing as though they were colleagues on the faculty. Still less is he a high-school teacher authorized to look over their shoulder benevolently or crossly, to correct their notebooks, or to give them good, average, or bad marks. 

 

Even the smallest, strangest, simplest, or obscurest among the biblical witnesses has an incomparable advantage over even the most pious, scholarly, and sagacious latter-day theologian." (page 31)

Evangelical theology is critical in the sense of being self-critical. All ideas are provisional approximations to the truth and must continually be critiqued and open to revision or discarding. This critical element is quite distinct from the "criticisms" that were fashionable in Barth's time such as historical criticism, source criticism, redaction criticism,... They were methods that tended to become presuppositions and placed the theologian above the text.

Humility for an evangelical theological means that their theology is all about God, not themself or their theology (system, method, content). The last chapter of the book, entitled "Love", contrasts agape love to eros love.

Love as Eros, is, in general terms, the primordially powerful desire, urge, impulse, and endeavor by which a created being seeks his own self-assertion, satisfaction, realization, and fulfillment in his relation to something else. He strives to draw near to this other person or thing, to win it for himself, to take it to himself, and to make it his own as clearly and definitively as possible. And in a special sense, love, as scientific Eros, is the same desire in its intellectual form.

.....Scientific, theological Eros has perpetually oscillated concerning the object which it should present to man for the sake of his self-assertion and self-fulfillment. That is to say, theological Eros can be directed either predominantly (and perhaps even exclusively) toward God or predominantly (and, once again, perhaps even exclusively) toward man. (page 197-8)

 

A narcissist cannot be an evangelical theologian.

The book challenges readers to reflect on their character and disposition if they aspire to be an evangelical theologian. At the beginning of the book, Barth discusses how everyone is a theologian, regardless of whether they identify themselves as such. 

The main weakness of the book is that it does not engage in a concrete and substantive way with the life or teachings of Jesus, such as his parables and the Sermon on the Mount. Perhaps this is because Barth was embedded in the Reformed theological tradition. The book would have a sharper edge if it engaged with Anabaptist tradition. On the other hand, the book provides a wonderful framework, motivation, and invitation to dive into a fresh reading of the Gospels and let the living Word speak to the reader/theologian through the Power of the Holy Spirit.

My church is all about me!

In the past decade, a disturbing list of church leaders has disgraced themselves. Reading about Mark Driscoll, Jonathan Fletcher, Mike Pilavachi, and Steve Timmis, there are common themes in these tragic stories. 

Each individual was a gifted public speaker with a charismatic personality. They were "successful" in the ABCs of church growth (Attendance, Buildings, and Cash). Their initial success began when they were relatively young. Their church/organisation expanded rapidly and they hired a large staff team. Due to their "success" in "ministry" they received global recognition. Institutional structures were created or manipulated so there was limited real accountability.

We now know, that in private the individual was arrogant, condescending, manipulative, and involved in bullying and abuse (verbal, emotional, sexual, spiritual, or financial). This occurred over many years, sometimes decades, despite concerns raised with the individual and those they were nominally accountable to. Within the organisation, there was a culture of enabling or cover-ups. This was rationalised out of fear of the individual or fear of endangering the "success" of the "ministry". People who formally raised concerns within the organisation were fired, expelled, or ostracised. The problem was only finally addressed, and the leader was removed when secular media reported the scandal or there was a threat of lawsuits.

A common theme in these stories may also be that these fallen "leaders" suffer from narcissistic personality disorder and/or that the churches they led suffered from collective narcissism. This is a complex issue and is addressed in the book that we are discussing in the theology reading group this month.

Narcissism Comes to Church: Healing Your Community from Emotional and Spiritual Abuse by Chuck DeGroat

A helpful short review of the book is in the journal Themelios. 

DeGroat is a seminary professor and therapist who has worked for decades with church planting organisations in evaluating candidates. Many anecdotes in the book illustrate his experience trying to clean up trails of destruction left behind by narcissistic leaders. 

The most disturbing thing about the book is captured in the following quotations.

 "[A] 2008 study showed a NPD prevalence of 7.7 percent in men and 4.8 percent in women.... instances of narcissism among pastors are much more common... The rates are even higher among church planters." (pages 7,19) 

“I saw that narcissistic traits were often presented as strengths. Narcissism can be interpreted as confidence, strong leadership, clear vision, a thick skin.” (page 19)

“Their persona may even be interpreted as spiritual giftedness, a personality well-suited to plant an effective church or lead a large ministry or church.”

“grandiosity, entitlement, and absence of empathy characteristic of narcissistic personality disorder was translated into the profile of a good leader.”

DeGroat puts the problems in a broader cultural context, including citing The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations (1979) by Nicholas Lasch.

DeGroat conjectures that  "missional fervour and rise in church planting we’ve witnessed since the 1980s can be correlated with the growing prevalence of narcissism."

Too often the church conforms to the culture it swims in, rather than being counter-cultural, just like Jesus.

Reading about and/or experiencing the vagaries of narcissistic leaders, it is easy to be incensed, indignant, and self-righteous. How could they be such a hypocrite? How could this happen? How could their organisation allow it? Why do so many people flock to churches led by such people?

DeGroat is helpful and challenging because he argues that the problem is not just narcissistic individuals, but organisations that exhibit collective narcissism. Tragically, history shows removing the leader usually does not simply mean that the problems go away.

"Churches are particularly susceptible to ... "collective narcissism" in which the charismatic leader/follower relationship is understood as a given. ... The leader uses polarizing rhetoric that identifies an outside enemy, bringing together leader and followers on a grandiose mission...

“the system often compares itself to others and finds others wanting. The narcissistic system may feature the compelling personality or style of its leader, the strategic nature of its location or mission, the orthodoxy of its doctrine, the authenticity of its worship, the beauty of its liturgy, the integrity of its activism. Those within the system are led to believe that the church down the block isn’t as blessed, special, or faithful.”

pages 23-24

Chapter 6, Understanding narcissistic systems gives a more detailed discussion.

"Perhaps this is about us, an invitation to wake up to the many ways in which certainty trumps curiosity, uniformity trumps unity, hubris trumps humility, control trumps connection, loyalty trumps love."

(page 116)

DeGroat cautions about that labels such as "narcissist" should not be thrown around. Only a professional can make a diagnosis of NPD. Furthermore, 

‘when we diagnose, we are describing a pattern … never a person. All people are unique. Labels, however well intended, cannot do justice to human complexity.’ 

A person is not their diagnosis. Compassion is needed. Narcissists are deeply wounded individuals who live in a deep sense of fear and inadequacy. Compassion includes removing them from leadership positions so they do not hurt others and so they can have the opportunity to face their woundedness and seek healing. DeGroat is not optimistic about this happening but gives a few examples to provide tempered and realistic hope.

I found the book helpful in understanding things I have observed and experiences that I have had over the years. It helped me make sense of patterns I have seen such as entitlement, a sense of superiority, condescension, playing the victim when criticised, making generic vague apologies, hidden addictions and rage, lack of empathy, having an explanation for everything,...

Never tell a narcissist that you think they are a narcissist. If they really are you may be left thinking you are crazy. They will gaslight you. (I actually did not know what gaslighting was until just a few years ago).

“Moreover, when the narcissistic leader is under attack, his response is defensiveness and a victim complex.” (page 22)

“Entitled pastors snap when pricked, however. Even the smallest pinprick of challenge or concern from another leads to defensiveness and self-protective strategies.”

“While anxious churches driven by narcissistic pastors may grow numerically, healthy churches flourish. Do not mistake numerical growth for flourishing.”

“sad abandonment of the humble way of Jesus shows up today in pastors of large and small churches,”

The subtitle of the book is "Healing your Community from emotional and spiritual abuse", but this is only addressed directly in chapter 8, and much of that is anecdotes. That chapter has a subsection, "Healing ourselves" that is only two pages. Nevertheless there is some helpful advice and exhortation.

"Healing requires radical honesty and the courage to follow through on the wilderness path. Perhaps the two most important components of healing trauma are awareness and intentionality... Memories may be repressed, bodily sensations ignored, and feelings and needs disregarded...

"Every healing journey is unique. There is no clear roadmap... We long to control and strategies a journey that can only unfold in its own time." (pages 141-2)

."..you must be relentlessly committed to doing your own inner work, both to protect yourself and others from harm and to engage from a place of centred compassion rather than reactive rage."  (page 163)

The book is not pleasant to read. But, it is a book that needed to be written and needs to be read and taken heed of.

The church is not about me. It is not about my tribe. It is not about the leader. It is about Jesus, the model of a humble servant leader. 

 

Living as a Christian is counter-cultural

What is absolutely basic to the Christian life? Eugene Peterson argues that it is not all about us. Rather, it is all about God. Furthermore, it is not about Christians doing stuff. Rather it is about Christians participating in what God is doing. This means that Christians must act in ways and use methods that align with the actions and methods of Jesus. This is Christian integrity. This goes far beyond avoiding sexual or financial impropriety.

Unfortunately, these absolutely basic things are contrary to the culture in which many Christians live, particularly in North America. And, due to globalisation, these pernicious influences have spread.

Two things absolutely basic to the Christian life are, unfortunately, counter to most things North American, which makes this intersection a confused place, clogged with accidents, snarled traffic, and short tempers. To begin with, the Christian life is not about us; it is about God. Christian spirituality is not a life-project for becoming a better person, it is not about developing a so-called ‘deeper life.’ We are in on it, to be sure. But we are not the subject. Nor are we the action. We get included by means of a few prepositions: God with us (Matthew 1:23), Christ in me (Galatians 2:20), God for us (Romans 8:31). With…in…for…: powerful, connecting, relation-forming words, but none of them making us either subject or predicate. We are the tag-end of a prepositional phrase.

The great weakness of North American spirituality is that it is all about us: fulfilling our potential, getting in on the blessings of God, expanding our influence, finding our gifts, getting a handle on principles by which we can get an edge over the competition. And the more there is of us, the less there is of God. 

Eugene Peterson, Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places, page 335

The advertisement below crassly captures the powerful cultural forces working against those who want to follow Jesus.

Sooner or later in this life we get invited or commanded to do something. But in that doing, we never become the subject of the Christian life nor do we perform the action of the Christian life. We are invited or commanded into what I call prepositional participation. The prepositions that join us to God and God’s action in us within the world—the with, the in, the for—are very important, but they are essentially a matter of the ways and means of being in on and participating in what God is doing.

These ways and means are the second basic in the Christian life that are also counter to most things American. Ways and means must be appropriate to ends. We cannot participate in God’s work but then insist on doing it in our own way. We cannot participate in the building of God’s kingdom but then use the devil’s tools and nails. Christ is the way as well as the truth and the life. When we don’t do it his way, we mess up the truth and we miss out on the life.

Totalism of dominant cultures

“The task of prophetic ministry is to nurture, nourish, and evoke a consciousness and perception alternative to the consciousness and perception of the dominant culture around us.” 

 The Prophetic Imagination by Walter Brueggemann, page 3.

Consider the "cultural moments". For each there was a dominant culture that claimed to be the only option, was well-ordered to protect the power and wealth of the rulers who stifled questioning and criticism.

The first four are considered by Brueggemann in The Prophetic Imagination.

1. Israel in slavery to Egypt. Pharoah ran a royal household and extensive system with absolute rule. The Israelites were enslaved not just for productivity but also for subjugation. Moses gave the Israelites and alternative vision of a community built around the freedom of God [YAHWEH, I am who I am, I will be who I will be], justice, and compassion.

2. Israel under King Solomon. Some considered this period to be the "golden era" of Israel. The twelve tribes were united in a single kingdom. The king was wise and just. Jerusalem was secure and there was a beautiful temple for worship. 

But actually, Solomon was an idolater, an adulterer, who murdered political enemies, made dubious foreign alliances, and had an insatiable desire for wealth, power, and women. People were heavily taxed and conscripted for his vanity projects such as his palace [which was much bigger than the Temple]. Through his family life and public life Solomon sowed the seeds for the division of Israel, civil war, and the eventual destruction of Israel and Judah.

3. Israel in exile in Babylon. The people were subjugated by the violence, power, economic might, vanity, and idolatry of Babylon. To this day Babylon remains a symbol of iniquity. The people seemed to have no option or hope. Many capitulated and enjoyed the comforts of assimilation.

4. Palestine in the time of Israel. Oppression occurred via two powers in a dubious and symbiotic relationship: the Roman imperialists and the Jewish religious leaders (Pharisees and Sadducees). The only economic option was to pay the heavy taxes to Rome and eke out a living. The only political option was to submit to Roman law, enforced by violence. The only religious option was to accept the power of the male elders and their theology and interpretation of the law. The only social option was to conform to the expectations and social norms prescribed by the Pharisees, particularly concerning relationships with Gentiles, "sinners", and the marginalised. The Prophet Jesus disrupted all this presenting a very different theological, moral, social, economic, and political vision. The cross was the embodiment of this vision.

5. Life in communist countries of Eastern Europe ruled by the Soviet Union in the 1970s. The only option was to accept the rule of the Party, parrot empty slogans, not ask questions, trust no one, vote in sham elections, pretend to work, and queue in line for hours for bread. Vaclav Havel captures the dehumanising nature of this totalism in his book, Power to the Powerless, published illegally in 1978.

6. The Western world today. On the one hand, it seems a different context to those above. We enjoy freedom of the press, democratic elections, accountability of individuals and institutions through the rule of law, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and economic freedom. On the other, there are dominant ideologies that we are soaked in: individualism, consumerism, and instrumentalist. These ideologies define the lives of individuals and how institutions (government, schools, hospitals, universities, churches, and charities) function. They are all hard to question. Many assume these are good. Others may acknowledge there are problems but consider there are no alternatives.

Individualism defines identity, sexuality, autonomy, careerism, and self-actualisation.

Consumerism defines social relationships and priorities. Relationships are transactional. Comfort, materialism, acquisitiveness, immediacy, and insatiability are the order of the day.

Instrumentalism is concerned with efficiency. Truth is defined by what works. It leads to a focus on money, marketing, metrics, and management. People are defined by their performance and productivity.

Here is what Havel said almost half a century ago. 

“It would appear that the traditional parliamentary democracies can offer no fundamental opposition to the automatism of technological civilization and the industrial consumer society, for they, too, are being dragged helplessly along by it. People are manipulated in ways that are infinitely more subtle and refined than the brutal methods used in the post-totalitarian societies.”

Exclusion and Embrace by Miroslav Volf revisited

 This month's theology reading group discussed Exclusion and Embrace: A theological exploration of identity, otherness, and reconciliation by Miroslav Volf. Wikipedia has a useful brief summary of the book.

I first read the book and discussed it in a group twelve years ago and wrote several blog posts about it. I have significantly benefited from re-reading it. Late in life, I now see the immense value of re-reading excellent books, particularly dense and profound ones. Over the past decade, I have built a greater knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of theology and philosophy, and how they engage (for better or worse) with modernism and postmodernism. This has increased my enjoyment and understanding of the book.

The book is impressive for both its scope and coherence. It covers a wide range of Biblical passages, events, histories, philosophies, and theologies. Furthermore, these topics and themes are woven together in a coherent whole. By his example, Volf makes a strong case that Christian theology should be public, for the sake of pluralistic societies and for the sake of the church.

Volf makes a convincing case for the following ideas.

Conflicts, small and large, are intertwined with questions of identity and otherness.

The natural outcome of an encounter with the "other", someone with a different identity to us, is exclusion. Discrimination, violence, and genocide are manifestations of the drive to exclude the other.

The counterpoint to exclusion is embrace, even embrace of enemies. There are many complexities to working out what such an embrace looks like. This requires grappling with issues of history, memory, truth, justice, peace, and forgiveness.

Evil exists. It must be grappled with politically, philosophically, and theologically. Both modernism and postmodernism have failed in their woeful inability to seriously engage with the concept of evil.

The Cross of Christ provides the template and resources to grapple, both intellectually and practically, with why and how, we need to move from exclusion to embrace.

In spite of the claims of modernity to the contrary, discussions of truth and justice can only be and should be conducted with reference to a specific tradition. [This reiterates the perspective of Alisdair MacIntyre.] There is no "view from nowhere", i.e, a perspective that is completely objective.

To grapple with conflicting identities, traditions, and perspectives we need to  practice "double vision" [taken from Thomas Nagel] whereby I acknowledge I have "the view from here" and work hard to engage with "the view from there". In different words, I endeavour to put myself in the shoes of the "other", even when I consider them morally repugnant or intellectually flawed.

For a Christian, nonviolence is the way to work towards peace. This is rooted in both the Cross, the Ressurection, and the hope of the Final Judgement. Evil not only exists but it will be punished, and in a just way. But, fallible humans are prone to deception and revenge. And so, that final judgement must rest with God, as Jesus embodied and Paul taught.

My sense of awe and wonder at nature

 On most mornings I go for a walk with my dog, Priya in the parkland near my house. Originally this daily ritual had pragmatic motivations: exercising both me and the dog, clearing my head for the day ahead, and promoting good mental health. Over time this activity has been enriched by my observation and contemplation of the natural world. I see flowers, trees, a creek, birds, and water dragons. Two beautiful rainbow lorikeets emerge from their nest inside the trunk of a gum tree and fly off chirping. A large water dragon looks like a miniature dinosaur as it lumbers out of my path and plunges into the safety of the creek. Priya and I clamber down the banks of the creek and hop over it where it narrows and make our way through a grove of majestic bamboo trees that creak in the wind. I notice how the different trees near the creek produce an impressionist image of a range of shades of green. I am delighted to see how some of these trees have produced beautiful yellow flowers. I catch a glimpse of a kookaburra standing still contemplating its environment before it sleekly flies off in a straight line with a slightly undulating height, so unlike the random flight path of swallows.

And then there is Priya. Sometimes she walks faithfully by my side. Other times she passionately sprints in random directions, just for the sheer pleasure of it. She smells practically everything. She experiences a whole reality that I am oblivious to. These walks can be a source of joy, awe, and wonder. Nature is amazing.

If you did not grow up in Australia, you may think that some of our wildlife is weird, cute, and fascinating: kangaroos, wallabies, koalas, echidnas, wombats, and platypi. Even though they are very familiar to me, seeing a kangaroo hop along is still a delight. Until this year I had never seen a platypus in the wild. When I finally saw one from a viewing platform in a National Park I stood mesmerised as I watched this cute little creature swim and dive, while searching for food on the bottom of the creek. My heart sang. But, why?

While at university I began taking bushwalking trips in wilderness areas with friends. The trips lasted for three to fourteen days, camping and carrying all our supplies.  Within a few hours' drive of Canberra, there is a multitude of national parks, each with distinct landscapes and ecosystems. They range from stone-covered river beds at the bottom of deep canyons to alpine areas covered in fields of wildflowers. Why did I find it so enthralling? I encountered beauty. I had a sense of wonder how there was something here that stood outside the rapidly changing world of the city. Human history and personal achievements really did not matter in the wilderness. Looking over a grand vista there was a sense of our own smallness and insignificance. I had an insatiable desire for more and developed a mentality that bushwalking was my default method of relaxing and the only way I could recover from mental and emotional exhaustion.

What is it about our experiences of nature that are so special and significant? What is the origin of the awe and wonder? What produces feelings of resonance, joy, and delight? There is mystery. 

To me, speaking somewhat scientifically, the sound of a bubbling brook is "white noise" and not that different from the sound produced by a highway full of cars. But, the effect on me of the creek and the highway is very different. Walking beside a bubbling brook is delightful, calming, energising, and peaceful. Walking beside the road is stressful, tiring, and just plain yucky. Why the difference?

The mystery in my encounters with nature hints at something greater than me, something that may complete me, and something that might place my life in a grander story.

There are two things to make sense of here, nature and my response to it. How do we describe and interpret nature? How do we interpret our experience of it? There are a range of perspectives we can bring to bear. On nature, there are the perspectives of biology and ecology, ranging from genetics to how climate change affects individual species. At what scale we look at the phenomena is a matter of what questions we are asking. Our personal response to nature can be viewed through a kaleidoscope of perspectives: biological, psychological, sociological, experiential, aesthetic, and religious. The representation and communication of our experiences can be expressed in art, music, poetry, and literature. All of these may provide a window into the reality of the natural world and our relation to it.

Here, I want to explore hints of transcendence. There is something going on that is beyond DNA, physical appearances, ecology, biological evolution, and the social conditioning of aesthetics. 

Through the ages, human encounters with nature have produced rich and diverse perspectives. In reaction to the rise of scientific descriptions of natural phenomena: from Newtonian mechanics to Darwinian evolution, the eighteenth century, saw the rise of romanticism, which valued the intense emotional experience of individuals' encounters with nature.

Negative sentiments concerning natural philosophy (science) is captured in the poem, Lamia written by John Keats in 1819. 

Do not all charms fly
At the mere touch of cold philosophy?
There was an awful rainbow once in heaven:
We know her woof, her texture; she is given
In the dull catalogue of common things.
Philosophy will clip an Angel's wings,
Conquer all mysteries by rule and line,
Empty the haunted air, and gnomed mine—

Unweave a rainbow, as it erewhile made

This negative sentiment about science is countered by Richard Dawkins in his 1998 book, Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder. He contends that science reveals rather than conceals the true beauty of the natural world. A softer perspective is that of Ursula Goodenough, author of The Sacred Depths of Nature, and an advocate of religious naturalism.

For me, my experience of awe and wonder hints at transcendence. But this is not my only feeling. There is also a sense of violation and lament as I see natural beauty being defiled and destroyed. Last week, the creek I walk by each day was flooded by sewage and became black. It was so polluted that dead fish appeared on the banks. The creek smelled so bad I changed my walking route for a few days to avoid the stench. There are countless other violations that grieve me: ancient forests being felled, wilderness areas flooded, wildlife losing their home, and fields of alpine wildflowers killed by late snow dumps resulting from climate change. To me, this sense of violation has a transcendent dimension. It hints that there is intrinsic value in nature and that there is a morality associated with how humans interact with it.

Why did Christianity go from a marginal sect to a dominant force in the Roman Empire?

For many years Rodney Stark was a Professor of Sociology at the University of Washington. He wrote an introductory college sociology text that has been through ten editions. 

A fascinating book he published in 1996 is The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries 

In the preface, Stark states his approach to trying to answer the question that is raised by the book title.

What I am primarily trying to contribute to studies of the early church is better social science—better theories and more formal methods of analysis, including quantification wherever possible and appropriate. Thus in this book I shall try to introduce historians and biblical scholars to real social science, including formal rational choice theory, theories of the firm, the role of social networks and interpersonal attachments in conversion, dynamic population models, social epidemiology, and models of religious economies.

Stark then considers how the role of women, caring for the sick in epidemics, social networks, martyrs, urban chaos, crises, and other factors all lead to the exponential growth of the church over three centuries.

                          Domenico di Bartolo, Care of The Sick

In the final chapter Stark states 

as I conclude this study, I find it necessary to confront what appears to me to be the ultimate factor in the rise of Christianity. Let me state my thesis: 

Central doctrines of Christianity prompted and sustained attractive, liberating, and effective social relations and organizations. 

I believe that it was the religion's particular doctrines that permitted Christianity to be among the most sweeping and successful revitalization movements in history. And it was the way these doctrines took on actual flesh, the way they directed organizational actions and individual behavior, that led to the rise of Christianity. 

A model academic conversation about Christian transformation

What does it mean to be human? How might a Christian address this question? How does Christian formation happen and what are its moral implications?  

This week at the theology reading group we are discussing a book that wrestles with these questions.

Becoming Whole and Holy: An Integrative Conversation about Christian Formation, by Jeannine K. Brown, Carla M. Dahl, and Wyndy Corbin Reuschling

The three authors are all seminary professors in the USA. They present a conversation drawing on their respective academic disciplines: social science, biblical studies/hermeneutics, and ethics.

The "method" used is "offer, receive, and integrate." Specifically, each author presents two chapters that give a perspective based on their discipline. This is followed by a chapter in which the two other authors respond, and then a three-way conversation about how their insights and perspectives might be integrated. 

In some ways, this book is (sadly) unique in that the tone is one of humble listening, mutual respect and appreciation, but with room for questioning and dissonance. I found the generosity of spirit refreshing. This has been facilitated by the authors being friends and professional colleagues for several decades.

There are many ideas in the book I found refreshing, helpful, and resonated with.

Multi-disciplinarity. There is a serious and sincere attempt to obtain a multi-faceted perspective by seriously engaging with other disciplines, including acknowledging the limitations of each discipline. Christians need not be afraid of the social sciences.

Rich theology. Several concepts are at the forefront. The Trinity is a model for the character of God and human relationality and particularity. Humanity is made in the image of God and this underscores human dignity, including the Other (those different from us). Personal holiness and wholeness mean participation in Christ and theosis (taking on the character of God). The Old Testament concept of shalom is the model for social wholeness and holiness.

Ethics matters. We live in a complex world of smartphones, sweatshops, marketing, wars, gross inequality, and refugees. How should then should communities of Christians live? Discerning answers requires ongoing prayer, study, debate, initiative, experiment, and reflection.

Context-sensitive. The authors repeatedly emphasise how hermeneutics is about being sensitive to differences (and similarities) between the original context of the different books in the Bible and the context of any reader today. They also wonder about how their own USA context influences their interpretation.

Beyond individualism. Holiness, wholeness, and formation are not just about individuals or something that can be achieved by isolated individuals. Rather, they all have communal dimensions. A Trinitarian perspective embraces the dialectic of relatedness and distinction. Christians need "to navigate between the extremes of living the narrative of "humans as autonomous, rugged individuals" and humans as "little more than social constructs."" (page 146). This resonates with John Wesley who said “The gospel of Christ knows of no religion but social; no holiness but social holiness”.

Embodiment. The Christian life is not just "spiritual". Holiness "has an important visible, bodily dimension" highlighted in the Incarnation: God dwelt in a human body. We worship and serve God with head, hearts, and hands.

Hospitality. This is highlighted as "a marker of holiness and wholeness" (pages 47-51).  "Hospitality is at the heart of the Christian life." Hospitality is not about entertainment, luxury, or fancy food and wine. It is a disposition that creates space for the other, particularly those who society keeps on the margins.

Later, I hope to discuss a few weaknesses of the book.

My twelve rules for life

To many one of the surprising phenomena of the past five years has been the popularity (and animosity towards) Jordan Peterson, a Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto, who has become a Youtube "celebrity", both for his lectures (some of which engage with the Bible) and his live interactions with his opponents on TV talk shows.  His book, Twelve Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos has sold five millions of copies. In some ways, Peterson has become a key figure in the "culture wars" in Western society. People either love him or loathe him. He is particularly loved by young single secular men who find that he has provided orientation and purpose (for better or worse) to their lives. The New York Times columnist, David Brooks, noted

My friend Tyler Cowen argues that Jordan Peterson is the most influential public intellectual in the Western world right now, and he has a point.

The purpose of this post is not for me to take sides in the debate about Peterson, rather it is to engage in an exercise that Peterson has stimulated others to do. Write down their own "rules for life", particularly those that they would recommend to younger people. Examples are Tyler Cowen's 12 rules, and Megan McArdle's.

At first, I did not see the point of me writing down my own 12 rules. Why not just say, "obey the Ten Commandments"? However, it was pointed out to me that the problem with that stance is that secular young people will not engage with such sentiments.  So, here are my "laws". I should explain the approximate criteria that I have tried to use in coming up with them. Their goal is to promote human flourishing, particularly for individuals facing the challenges and opportunities of the postmodern Western world. They are "exhortations" of things to think and do, not observations about the way that the world is. But, I would like to think that they are based on observations about the way that the world actually is. There is some overlap between the different rules.

 

1. Accept that life is not all about you

This may go against all your instincts, wishes, and what you have been told by parents, teachers, school counselors, and advertising. Being self-centred does not work. You need other people, both to function in this world and to have a meaningful life. This is why you need to observe the next law.

2. Cultivate and preserve relationships
They are central to everything in life. We need them to survive, to function, to prosper, and to flourish.

3. Listen and learn

Most of us like to air our opinions and be the centre of attention. But, we are very finite and have limited knowledge, understanding, and life experience. The only way we can address that is by taking the time and energy to listen attentively to others. Listening and conversation are arts. Express sympathy before solutions.

We need to listen not just for the words but the feelings behind the words. Then we need to respond not just at an intellectual level (particularly by presenting our "solutions" to other people's "problems").

4. Expect, respect, and learn from diversity

You are unique. No one else in the universe is like you. Your DNA, life experience, strengths, weaknesses, and personality are like no one else. Hence, don't expect other people to be just like you, try to make them like you, or marginalise them because they are different to you.

5. Don't let money determine everything

This world is obsessed with money: salaries, investments, purchases, economic growth, shopping, budgets, fundraising,... But money tends to skew priorities in the wrong direction, too often harms relationships, and leads to disappointments, whether you gain money or lose it.

6. Get a dog! 

Then you won't take yourself and life so seriously. You will have more fun. You can see my rules, unlike Peterson's, are all a bit too serious and not very funny. Just like me. A dog helps. Get one.

7. Accept that some things are more complex than you might think
The world is complex, and life is complex. That can be overwhelming, scary, and confusing. Too often we think understand things and are drawn to simplistic solutions to complex problems. [Elect this politician and the country will get better. The answer to drug addiction is .... ]. A lot of life is grey, not black and white. Accept nuance. 

8. Accept that some things are simpler than you might think

On the other hand, some of us have a tendency to make things very complicated, whether it is academic jargon, training programs, or bureaucratic procedures. We also may procrastinate about concrete action because we think we have to come up with the perfect strategy that addresses all the complexities. For example, on the one hand, managing people is complex. On the other hand, if you do just a few simple things: listen, show an interest in them as a person, and adjust their job to their strengths, you can be quite a successful manager.

9. Aim to live in reality, not in fantasy

We all wish that the world were a certain way; that it conformed to our view of it. It may be scary and disorienting to accept that it may not be like that. However, because we are so finite, we need to be open to the fact that we may be wrong, be willing to change our views, and how we live as we butt up against the way the world really is.

10. Practise forgiveness 

No one is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes, some big, some small. When we are wronged by someone, whether intentionally or not, our relationship may be at a crossroads. Too often, we are unwilling to forgive, even when an apology is offered. We destroy relationships and live in bitterness. Forgiveness is powerful and can heal us and our relationships.

11. Focus on your own shortcomings rather than those of others
Our natural tendency is to be blind to our own shortcomings, weaknesses, and failings, but to have a highly tuned sense of the failings of others. This hinders both personal growth and good relationships.

12. Consider Jesus

Arguably, he is the most influential person in human history. His teachings, life, death, and influence over the past two thousand years are worthy of serious study and engagement.

One may notice that perhaps the most common themes in my laws are those of humility and the importance of relationships.

I welcome comments on my rules.

Deep Life

Reflecting on trends in society, churches, and universities, a significant challenge and concern is the accelerating rush to superficiality. Constant electronic connectivity through email, texting, and social media promotes urgency, immediacy, oversimplification, fads, and superficiality. Noise, hurry, and crowds push out quietness, stillness, and solitude. The nuance associated with deep reflection is lost and replaced with a Twitter storm of celebrity, "spin", and conspiracy theories. Money, marketing, management, and metrics dominate discussion and decisions.

On the one hand, this reflects human nature. On the other hand, to see the problem is getting a lot worse consider history, whether that of the church or universities. What individuals, institutions, and work (scholarship, art, music, literature) have had a lasting positive influence? 

Who do I admire and respect? I suggest that two essential features are the depth of what was produced and the long and sustained effort (free from distractions) that was required to produce it. The depth may be in insight, creativity, scholarship, personal integrity, engagement, understanding, or relationships. I see this depth in people such as Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, Augustine, Calvin, Karl Barth, Mother Teresa, Einstein, John Stott,...

The figure above shows how some trees have root systems that have a depth greater than their height. The image is from here.

Now I consider how this issue of depth is receiving increasing attention from a range of authors in quite different contexts: business, the knowledge economy, social commentators, universities, and churches.

In the context of the modern information economy the need to turn from "shallow work" to "deep work" has been carefully argued by Cal Newport, a computer science professor, in his 2016 book, Deep Work:

"Shallow work is non-cognitive, logistical or minor duties, often performed while distracted. These efforts require little cognitive effort, tend to create little value, and are usually easy to replicate." Examples include replying to emails, browsing websites, looking at social media, filling in forms, and attending meetings.

"Deep work is the ability to focus without distraction on a cognitively demanding task. These efforts create new value, improve your skill, and are hard to replicate.”

This ties in with Malcolm Gladwell's argument that the 10,000-hour rule is one key ingredient for professional success.

In a different vein, in The Road to Character, The New York Times columnist David Brooks confesses, “I was born with a natural disposition towards shallowness.” He recounts his efforts to find a way out of shallow punditry and to cultivate personal character, particularly to move beyond "resume virtues", beloved by the modern world, and to move towards "eulogy virtues" such as humility, bravery, and kindness. The book is based on a course that Brooks taught three times at Yale University.

Piling higher

Some of the language that follows may offend some. But consider what the Apostle Paul said in the following verses. Interestingly, most English translations are sanitised. Here are renditions from The Message.

Why don’t these agitators, obsessive as they are about circumcision, go all the way and castrate themselves! (Galatians 5:12)

Compared to the high privilege of knowing Christ Jesus as my Master, firsthand, everything I once thought I had going for me is insignificant—dog dung. (Philippians 3:8)

Christian Smith is a distinguished sociologist who has done seminal work in the sociology of religion including adolescent spirituality, racism, and American evangelicalism. (Perhaps I particularly like him because he argues that critical realism and emergence are important in the philosophy of the social sciences). 

Of relevance to this post is that in 2018 Smith published an excellent (but depressing) article, "Higher Education is Drowning in BS: And it’s mortally corrosive to society" in The Chronicle of Higher Education.

 

Harry Frankfurt, a distinguished philosopher at Princeton University, wrote  On BS  that became a New York Times bestseller. According to Wikipedia,

Frankfurt determines that bullshit is speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. The liar cares about the truth and attempts to hide it; the bullshitter doesn't care if what he or she says is true or false, but cares only whether the listener is persuaded.

Anthropologist David Graeber refers to Frankfurt's book in his book Bullshit Jobs, which argues that today, half of the jobs are pointless and are psychologically destructive.

Now I turn to the church in the West. It is embedded in this culture and prone to fads, superficiality, and a focus on the four M's: money, marketing, management, and metrics. In his book, Ordinary: Sustainable Faith in a Radical, Restless World, Michael S. Horton expresses concern about the preoccupation in the USA church with the "next-big-thing" that promises radical transformation, and advocates instead "a renewed appreciation of the commonplace."

The pandemic has made this even more urgent and challenging because the world (including everyday life, work, ministry) has become even more complex, unpredictable, and fragile.

Deep Life in the Bible

The Bible addresses the issue of superficiality versus depth, particularly with regard to integrity and relationships. For example, in Isaiah 58, the Israelites complain to God.

"Why have we fasted and you see it not?. Why have we humbled ourselves, and you take no knowledge of it?"

God responds that their worship is actually superficial and lacks integrity.

Behold, in the day of your fast you seek your own pleasure,

    and oppress all your workers.

4 

Behold, you fast only to quarrel and to fight

    and to hit with a wicked fist.

Fasting like yours this day

    will not make your voice to be heard on high.

5 

Is such the fast that I choose,

    a day for a person to humble himself?

Is it to bow down his head like a reed,

    and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him?

Will you call this a fast,

    and a day acceptable to the Lord?  

“Is not this the fast that I choose:

  to loose the bonds of wickedness,
    to undo the straps of the yoke,
to let the oppressed go free,
    and to break every yoke?
Is it not to share your bread with the hungry
    and bring the homeless poor into your house;
when you see the naked, to cover him,
    and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?

Matthew 13 recounts Jesus telling the parable of the sower, which describes different responses to Jesus' teaching (the Word).

“A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.

Jesus' condemned the Pharisees, the religious elite of his day, for their hypocrisy, particularly their concern with outward appearances rather than a deep integrity based on a pure heart. For example, in Luke 11 Jesus says,

“Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? But now as for what is inside you—be generous to the poor, and everything will be clean for you."

We don't need just Deep Work, we also need Deep Integrity, Deep Relationships, and Deep Spirituality. I suggest they are often interrelated. Deep Work is concerned with "cognitively demanding tasks" but we also need to set aside time to focus on tasks that are morally, relationally, or spiritually demanding. In different words, this is about Formacion (spiritual formation and discipleship).

Christian leaders in a smartphone world

Is there depth to how I follow Jesus with my heart, hands, and mind? This involves movement and engagement in horizontal, vertical, and inward directions. Is there depth in my relationships: with God, with family, with co-workers, with students, and with supporters?

A deep understanding is required of God's Word, the world, ourselves, our context, and the university. Such understanding can only come with sustained periods of thinking, reading, writing, learning, listening, praying,... 

How can we move in this direction? It is not easy because we are all constantly being pushed in the wrong direction: noise, superficiality, rush, distraction, ... 

Although it is not possible to cut out all the noise and distractions, they can be reduced with planning, organisation, and discipline, from the individual to the institutional level. Many of the practical suggestions that Cal Newport makes about Deep Work are relevant to other areas of life. His suggestions include quitting social media, digital minimalism, and rigorous scheduling of time for deep life.

Institutions are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. As they grow and age they have a natural tendency to lose the passion, commitment, innovation, outward orientation, and flexibility of their founders. Instead, they tend to become self-focused, bureaucratic, inflexible and centred around the careers and interests of their management. 

Institutions and their leaders can move in the right direction by hiring and promoting people with real depth, implementing policies and procedures that shift the emphasis away from the four Ms, and create space for deep life, including by shifting conversations towards deep work, deep integrity, deep relationships, and deep spirituality.